Talk:National Counterterrorism Center

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Terrorism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Espionage Mid‑importance National Counterterrorism Center is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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)[reply]

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

• 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 {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]