Talk:United States federal government continuity of operations

	United States portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Computer security?

I'm not up to speed on wiki-policy, so could a more senior member weigh in on whether the computer security section at the end of the article (after the horizontal rule) is appropriate? I've never seen it done on any other article, and it doesn't seem right to just stick it at the bottom of the page. Are there rules for this? --Jweed 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right; it was off-topic and incorrectly styled as well. Removed. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 20:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of contents box?

It lokos out of place and unneeded. What does anyone think about my getting rid of it. --Gbinal 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Never mind. It seems to be better now. Peace. --Gbinal 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated?

It seems that this directive or "Plan B" was removed by the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked. DeathscytheH64 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, its noted in the wikipedia entry. DeathscytheH64 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theorists?

Does anybody else feel the 8 "concerns" over the Continuity of Operations Plan seem a little too out there? I can understand how somebody individually might feel that way, but where has any of these concerns been brought up or addressed by an official with a little more understanding on the subject? I can see #1 or #2 being a bit broad and general, but after that the writing gets a bit superfluous for a wikipedia page.--Goob (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "concerns" are clearly editorial, and not factual. They uniformly lack citation. That is not to say I disagree entirely with some of the stated concerns, but "criticisms" stated in that section need to be attributed to the entity expressing the criticism or concern. Some of this would be considered analysis if there was any factual substantiation cited. The section needs to be supported or deleted. BowMtnSpirit (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Besides, the lack of citations has not been corrected since they concern was brought up. I'm taking them out. If someone has proper citations, they should add them. 74.193.243.230 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Here is a article with a number of quotations giving concerns about the COP. I am re-entering this, so others can look at the sources given there to see if there is any-thing that can be used. This is a talk page, not a content page. Please do not delete this link again. Kdammers (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam doesn't belong on talk pages either. Promoting some blog entry by an anonymous person isn't helpful. If you see a source he uses you actually read and think is relevant, post a link to THAT source. We shouldn't be promoting this guys personal opinion piece just because it might contain a link to something useful. Show the useful stuff from the RS and don't make people wade through this dude's personal opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Whether disambiguation is required can be discussed in a future RM if anyone wants to follow up on it. Jenks24 (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Executive Branch ''Continuity of Operations Plan'' → Continuity of Operations – The name of the program is "Continuity of Operations"[1]. The distinguishing information in the current title is unnecessary, because "Continuity of Operations" is the exclusive title of the U.S. plan. Brycehughes (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The quotation marks are particularly ugly and should be avoided. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Do other countries have similar names for their plans that we might end up conflicting with? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could use a hatnote: For other uses, see Continuity of government. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more supportive of calling it U.S. Continuity of Operations plan or something that shows it is US-centric in the title. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think one problem is that "continuity of operations" and "continuity of government" are somewhat synonymous. Another option would be to rename this to "United States Continuity of Operations plan" (or whatever, so long as we get rid of this ugly title) to reflect an actual plan and then redirect Continuity of operations to Continuity of government to reflect the concept, adding hatnotes. Brycehughes (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Continuity of Operations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F118489654058910.xml&coll=7
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120726070521/http://www.norad.mil/about/CMOC.html to http://www.norad.mil/about/CMOC.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the subject of this article?

Can the authors of this article tell me what was the original subject, scope, and focus of this article? It appears to me that it was intended to be limited to continuity of operations of the United States federal government. I ask this question though because of the last statement in the article summary which reads, "FEMA provides guidance to the private sector for business continuity planning purposes." Is this guidance provided by FEMA part of the U.S. continuity of operations plan or is this a tangent, a separate initiative, and a related subject? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuity of Operations → United States federal government continuity of operations – This article is about one specific initiative of the United States federal government and not one specific document nor the subject of Business continuity or any of its sub-topics in general. The current article title is misleading as it does not specify that the scope is limited to the United States federal government. There are other good alternatives but the bottom line is that some differentiation is needed to name the focus of the article which the current title does not provide. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems eminently reasonable. I will move it. I can't see any possible controversy about this, so I will also close this discussion. Please revert my changes of you disagree. -- The Anome (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source removed

A passage was previously removed but its citation to "Homeland security takes over communications May 9, 2007" was left in place. I am removing this orphaned citation from the article. Ibadibam (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]