Talk:National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center

Out of date

Article talks about facilities for this org being under construction, and what the mission of the org "will be". It is my understanding that these and other items are out of date. ike9898 (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS Requires More References Be Cited in Support of Statements Made in this Article.

Apart from another editor's request that this article be brought up-to-date from the Bush administration, there's another glaring deficiency we ought to remove from it - there's only ONE reference to support statements made in it, and that was the one I made earlier this week.

The guidance in WP:Reliable Sources is very clear: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

This article fails on almost every point of that guideline.

I appreciate the work of other editors in this article. I mentioned the current (Obama) administration's awarding a US$481 million contract to Battelle to administer NBACC over the next ten years, citing an article in Defense Daily as the source of the information. Since then, my reference is still the only reference cited in support of any encyclopedic content in this article.

Could everyone please cite the sources of information for what they said in this article?

It shouldn't be hard to do that if the statements are true, and I know that many of those statements are true because I followed the debate over NBACC in the November/December 2006 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - I had a letter in that issue in which the very last article was an impassioned criticism of NBACC for the very reasons cited in the article.

It's possible for us to remove the reasons this article was tagged in the first place as well as the reason someone might - perhaps should - have requested its deletion - because only one statement in the entire article complies with WP:RS and has a reliable source supporting it.

If I have to be WP:BOLD and bring the article into compliance with WP:RS, there's a risk I'll have to delete statements which I cannot find reliable sources to support - but which the editor who made that statement can more easily provide. If I can't find reliable sources for more than one or two statements, so that it becomes a stub, I would also consider nominating the article for deletion altogether, since almost nobody provided a source of any sort at all to support the statements made in the article. It might be better to delete the article and start over in that case.

That's not what I'd rather do. I'd prefer us all to cite reliable sources for what we wrote in this article. Can we? loupgarous (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of finding references which can be cited in support of the article's existing statements in the "Controversy" section, and of updating the statements to reflect current facts (the statements before were written as though it were still 2005-2006).

I'd still welcome help with sourcing the remainder of the article, however. loupgarous (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TAnthony, for helping with my date/time issues in the "ProveIt" references! loupgarous (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures 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 https://web.archive.org/20070110075921/https://www.dhs.gov/xres/labs/gc_1166211221830.shtm to http://www.dhs.gov/xres/labs/gc_1166211221830.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 08:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is NBACC still active?

According to the wiki, "Trump budget for 2018, though, would see this award retracted, leading to the end of all scientific operations by March 2018." Is the whole place shut down, or just running on minimum budget? Might be helpful to make this more clear in the lead paragraph. Thanks. 2600:8804:6600:45:341B:D4D8:9684:8122 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]