Talk:Title 10 of the United States Code

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

TopicsEdit

If editors don't give proper time for additional info to be added, it is difficult to add an article. There are already several USC articles and none on Title 10 giving it very lopsided coverage. Title 10 is referenced elsewhere and crucial to US Armed Forces yet there is nothing on it in Wikipedia. I fully expected others to conribute yet being cut off at the kness prevents that as well as me adding additional content.HJ 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem here. If you're going to reproduce the document verbatim, Wikisource is a better place to do it (and in fact, it's already there). Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles, not for source documents. On the other hand, if you're actually going to provide commentary and analysis of the Title 10, you're going to need to cite reliable sources to prevent original research. Otherwise, this article should be redirected to United States Code. ColourBurst 00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The impatience of you both have convinced me to pull the article altogether so I can concentrate and not be interrupted continuouslyHJ 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Impatience? I removed the hangon because it wasn't a speedy deletion candidate. I never thought it should be deleted (maybe redirected, but not deleted). I just wanted to remind you that the article shouldn't be original research (because that's one of the core policies of Wikipedia); I apologize if my tone seems harsh. ColourBurst 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about tone at all. No worries there. I was getting zinged by Dr Bradbury while sorting content and references to use and then you. My intent was to provide insight into a misunderstood and rarely appreciated fundamental component of Department of Defense that should be resident in many Wiki articles. Posting it in Wikisource does little to expalin it and if it isn't linked to in articles, it does little good there. Wikipedia has several articles on other Titles of USC but not Title 10 and the one link that exists, points to wrong reference. If I could get sandbox to work for me, I'd wait until it was ready for primetime. HJ 01:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)