Talk:Born secret

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] US bias (assuming this is about the US)

I have no problem with articles about the use of phrases laws, and concepts in the US. But as long as this is an international encyclopedia, you can't simply assume we know it is about the US. Which government? Whose uses this term? Please make clear the context. I'd fix it, but I have no knowledge of the subject --Doc (?) 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there are analogs in other countries so I left that open (a statement of "this may or may not only apply to the USA" seemed somewhat meaningless to me). I thought I had specified that the lengthy example was from the US but I guess I just cited the legislation. --Fastfission 01:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is fine now. A 'this may or may not apply' statement is (as you say) unneccessary and silly - all that needs to be clear is that you are talking about the US. A simple 'In the US Born Secret ...' suffices - if someone else knows about another nation, they can expand it later. My problem is when there is not nation mentioned, and we are all to assume its about the US - as if US was the defaut field of interest in WP - that is systematic bias. But, as I say, I think the article is just fine now. Cheers --Doc (?) 09:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)