Talk:National Security Agency/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit to controversy section

Moved from Talk:(my tp) - wolf 08:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The edit you removed on the page "National Security Agency"

Hi, I fail to find the reason for the removal. It is well-sourced and relevant information. Do you want me to make any changes? Please clarify. --Pink2eyes (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Once content is added to an article, you should expect that it can and will be changed. Your edit wasn't "removed', it was copy edited and moved to a more appropriate section. The sole-source provided basically touched upon brief points in the evolution of cyber-intelligence over the past 30 years or so. It was a critical and somewhat flawed opinion piece. The most relevant info that could be mined from it were the controversies regarding the hacking of Obama's email and NSA skills being sold to not-so-friendly foreign nations. This is a fairly standard type of edit that you'll find across WP. Have a nice day - wolf 08:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of combat support agency

In addition to being a national intelligence agency, the NSA is also a combat support agency of the Department of Defense, which is a key aspect of its mission (https://www.nsa.gov/About/Mission-Combat-Support/). @NealKoblitz: can you please explain your reversion (edit summary: off topic, extraneous) given this? Garuda28 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I realize that the NSA is part of the DOD. But the sidebar you added says nothing about the NSA. The NSA is also a part of the US government, but that doesn't mean the article would have a sidebar illustrating the structure of the US government. I'm objecting to the sidebar. If you want to put back "combat support agency", I don't object to that. NealKoblitz (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@NealKoblitz: The sidebar includes NSA under "Combat Support Agencies." The sidebar is a top level overview of the U.S. Armed Forces, to include top-level commands, and includes both unified combatant commands and combat support agencies. If you take another look, you should see the NSA included under there as required for WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Garuda28 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That WP article deals with organization of articles, links, and navigation between articles. My objection is to the sidebar, not to the link combat support agency. When readers glance at your sidebar, they see nothing about the NSA unless they un-hide the part at the very bottom, when the NSA comes at the end of a long list of extraneous information related to the organization of the DOD. If your only point is to tell readers that the NSA is classified as a "combat support agency" of the DOD, you've already done that by the edit in the text. There's no need to take up space in the article showing details of the DOD organizational structure. NealKoblitz (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That's the point of navboxes – to link related articles together. It's not to inform on the article its on, its to navigate readers to related articles. It fulfills the same purpose as the navbox does on the other combat support agencies, unified combatant commands, and military service pages. I'm struggling to understand your argument - is it against the idea of a navigation box between related articles, or is it stylistic and limited to this page? Garuda28 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's stylistic and limited to this page. I don't think a lot of space on a page should be devoted to extraneous information. If you can assist navigation or show the relationship between articles in other ways (such as "see also" and of course wikilinks), that's fine. Some editors have already objected to the length of this article, so I don't think we should include extraneous information that doesn't mention the NSA at all until the very end, in a hidden portion. NealKoblitz (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Garuda28 does not have to justify the including of a standard template, just because you don't like it. - wolf 06:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO better off without the sidebar. It's an overview of the entire armed forces. Also NSA is not fully within it/ them; also reports to the DNI. North8000 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's an overview of the armed forces, the NSA is a DOD agency afterall and just because it's also part of the intel community, which is overseen by the DNI, does not change that fact. - wolf 06:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: you are correct that it’s got two sides. On one hand it’s part of the IC as a national intelligence agency, but on the other hand it is also a combat support agency (this designation being key in indicating it’s integration) and fully with the Armed Forces, just like the other combatant commands and combat support agencies. I think we can recognize both are equally true at the same time. Garuda28 (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "combat support agency" I think that putting it in the lead sentence overemphasizes that moniker. Also the lead is to summarize (only) what is in the body of the article and that isn't even in the body. Third, it is unsourced. I think that there is a difference between it being said that they fulfill that role (amongst other things that they do) vs saying that such is an overall statement of what the agency is. I think that the former is sky-is-blue and that elevation to the latter would require good secondary sourcing which is not likely to exist. For example, If I say that my son John Q. Smith my son is my support person, the lead sentence of the John Q Smith article would not say "John Q Smith is a North8000 support person." Bottom line, IMO I would add a more explanatory / attributed statement of "support agency" to the body of the article and possibly a summary sentence of that later in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I added it to the body of the article North8000 (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Snowden addition

I think that that was a good addition. But the description of what that somewhat biased source said about what Snowden alleged is presented as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. I think that that assertion will need more work. Some of the items (collection of metadata) is sky-is-blue fact, others will need more work including stronger sourcing and attribution. Also the biggest NSA complaint about Snowden (that the broad leak did widespread damage to NSA's work outside of the publicized areas.) needs coverage. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Content from Main Article

@Thewolfchild: I’m sorry if my overly-brief edit summary was unclear. By “unjustified removal of content” I meant unjustified removal from the main article, not from Wikipedia. I saw that you’d created a new “controversy” article, but my thinking is that a reader coming to the main article on the National Security Agency should get comprehensive coverage without having to fork to a subsidiary article. The introductory paragraphs summarizing the article include a paragraph about controversies, so it would be odd if there’s nothing about it in the main body of the article.

As far as Wikipedia policy goes, the closest I could find to this situation is in WP:Content forking in section 2.2 on “Article spinoffs”. Two conditions are given when such spinoffs should occur, and neither seems to be relevant here. In particular, I don’t see that the coverage that was in the “Controversies” section of the main article was undue. It occupied less than ¼ of the article (measured in bytes). There’s been extensive coverage of controversies involving the NSA in the sources, and tremendous public interest in them, especially after the Edward Snowden revelations. So I don’t think ¼ is too much.

Unfortunately, removing controversies from the main article could appear to readers as if editors want to sanitize the article. Of course, I’m not suggesting that this was your intent.

I looked at the history of editing and saw that the main article has contained controversies since 2006 (such as ECHELON and phone taps). Please restore the article to its former state with its “controversies” section while we wait for other editors to resolve this issue. If this doesn’t happen soon, I suppose we could ask for a Third Opinion or make a Request For Comment. Thank you. NealKoblitz (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to file for 3PO or any other DR, go head. Nothing has been "sanitized", be it "intentional" or otherwise. People look at the TOC and still see "Controversies". They scroll down and find a link to "List of NSA controversies, with the exact same content as before. This was just a standard size split, it happens all the time as WP continues to grow (also see Wikipedia:Content forking#List formats). Why dump all that content back onto this page, just to have a review and/or discussion that can still be had anyway? (Are you also demanding that the new list page be deleted as well? Or that we needlessly retain 50kb worth of duplicate content? Content that will grow differently, btw.) I realize you've only made about 50 or so edits, but as you gain more experience, you'll learn that nothing nefarious has taken place here. - wolf 23:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say anything was "nefarious". I assume good faith on the part of other editors and do not speculate about other editors' motives. Also please drop the condescension. A small edit count does not mean that I'm wrong. As an experienced editor, you should be aware that, according to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss, "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Let me ask you again: Please restore the article to its earlier form while your proposed edit is being discussed.

Yes, as you suggest, let's look at the Table of Contents, since that's where a typical reader goes to see if a topic of interest to them is covered in the article. Before your edit, a large part of the TOC consisted of 13 subsections of controversies, so that a reader interested in a particular one could go right to it. It's likely that many readers do come to the page for information about one or more controversies, since those controversies are what gets extensive press coverage and popular interest. After your edit, all they see is one line labeled "controversies" and, as I mentioned before, they are likely to think that there's very little coverage and possibly the article has been sanitized to downplay criticism of the NSA. Meanwhile, under "Facilities" the TOC has 8 subsections and subsubsections, indicating detailed coverage of facilities and very little about controversies. This is bizarre, especially since, as I mentioned before, the introductory paragraphs summarizing the article include a whole paragraph about controversies -- and nothing about facilities. NealKoblitz (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify? - wolf 07:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

What is unclear in what I wrote?

I just raised this question at the NPOV noticeboard, hoping to get input from experienced editors. NealKoblitz (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I had asked you some questions but your response didn't seem to address them, hence the request for clarification. And now, without any further discussion, you've started a post on the NPOVNB, that begins with a somewhat disingenuous: "The discussion between me and Thewolfchild ... isn't going anywhere". And now apparently, and somewhat out of the blue, you suddenly have a problem with the lists of controversies for the FBI and CIA as well. One could wonder that, if you had found those lists were created by other editors, would you have even mentioned them? Is this even about the lists, or this becoming personal? Still waiting for answers btw... - wolf 13:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve restored the status quo pending a WP:CONSENSUS on a. whether the split is appropriate at all and b. what summary content should be in its place. (The answer to the latter, as per WP:CORRECTSPLIT is never none whatsoever.) Cambial — foliar❧ 19:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Per CORRECTSPLIT, either you, NealKoblitz, or anyone for that matter, could and still can add a "good summary". But not even you could possibly think that dumping 50Kb worth of content back onto the page is at all constructive, as all you've accomplished is a needless and redundant content fork. - wolf 21:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, your copying of this content to a separate article with no discussion and without a reason based in policy is a needless and redundant content fork. If you believe there is reason to split or fork this content you can seek consensus for it below. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't need consensus to split in the first place, and when I did, there was no "redundant fork". You did that by needlessly duplicating the content back to this page. There was simply no need for that, as evidenced by other editors reverting your disruptive edits. You have not righted any great wrongs here, the pages could've remained as is and there still could be a discussion to hear out any concerns. The community will still have a chance to get their say and this will be sorted out, one way or the other. (btw; how are progressing with that summary for the CIA page?) - wolf 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You required consensus then and you still do. There is none for your approach. The cringey attempts at mischaracterising my actions, or their intent in your fertile imagination, do not merit a response. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

And yet you responded, (and I'm sure you will again, you always do) but, getting back on topic, can you cite a policy that confirms I "needed a consensus" for the split? Thanks - wolf 14:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Just took a quick look. I normally say that "controversy" sections should not exist; they just lower the bar for putting heckling and POV crap into the article. But in this case, these contain a huge amount of central and important content; IMO they should not be removed. But maybe there is some weak stuff in there that should be removed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: this isn't about the existence of "controversy" sections, just that the size of one became quite large, in an already very large article, and the section was split off to it's own page. No content was lost or changed in the move. - wolf 00:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My main focus is the informativeness of the article, the top level article on the NSA. While that section also contains a lot a cruft (flippantly speaking, every accusation ever made by anybody) it also covers major and important topics regarding the agency. To me having that all totally disappear into a sub article is unthinkable. Maybe a solution would be to copy it to a sub-article and then trim this section here down to about 1/3 of its current size. Also, while I'm generally against criticism sections, this section really isn't that. The cruft aside, it's really an informative "what are they doing/ what should they be doing regarding US citizens?" section. I'd help if wanted. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the info hasn't "disappeared", it's completely intact, on it's own, related page. And this notion of a "sub-article", that is somehow a hidden, difficult to find secret area and not just another WP page, is incorrect. The main article is huge, the controversies section is large enough, and obviously significant enough of a topic to have it's own article. The "controversies" are still noted in the lead, still listed in the table of contents, which still leads to it's own section that, while atm needs a summary, still has a link that takes readers to the controversies page. Splitting pages is fairly standard stuff, and happens regularly as the project grows. - wolf 14:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate the patronizing wording, repeating stuff that I already know and took into consideration as if it was something that I didn't know. Also the sub-article is a less prominent place, I never said or implied anything like it was a "hidden, difficult to find secret area"; such is a caricature of what I said. Let's call that a friendly note about a possibly inadvertent stuff and move on. IMO it's far more common to retain brief coverage of the topic with a "full article at...." note / link. What do you think of that idea? North8000 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: This medium sucks sometimes for communicating, so... peace. As for your last question, yes I agree. Typically there is "brief coverage" (or summary) with a "'full article at...' note/link" (hatnote). While I did add the hatnote, I hadn't written a summary yet (as I noted at the NPOVNB), and if no one else does, I'll do it. (Been kinda busy, and I've never had this kind of reaction before, to a simple page split, during xmas no less...) Anyway, Happy holidays. - wolf 11:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and not merely more common, but explicit consensus policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Wishing you a great 2022. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's best to have the controversies gathered together in their own section as it is now in the current version, because that's most convenient for the reader. The controversies tend to be somewhat related to one another, and a reader who wants information about one controversy is likely to be interested in others as well The current table of contents makes it easy for such readers to find what they want. NealKoblitz (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So I think that the choices are:

1. Status quo (all such info at this article)
2. Move the main coverage to a new article, but retain a reduced summary here
3. Move all said material to a new article, leaving only a pointer to that new article.

"Pick one" on a three way choice presents math problems unless everybody presents their opinion on every choice. But perhaps this could help crystalize a discussion. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

My opinion would be that both #1 and #2 are fine (with #1 being best if the article can fit it) and I'd oppose #3. My reason is that the discussed contents are not just the usual collection of crap that show up at POV-magnet "criticism" sections. These are mostly news events and factual material or credible assertions of factual material which are important and central to coverage of this topic and should, at least to to some extent, be in the main/top level article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

@NealKoblitz:, speaking of splitting, you started a discussion at the npovnb, but are continuing a parallel discussion here. Typically discussions regarding an issue should be kept to one place. You only posted the OP there and haven't commented since, but you are continuing the discussion here. Should that discussion be closed and further comments directed here? (Or vice-versa?) - wolf 11:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on this talk-page because that's where we're supposed to discuss a disputed edit to the main page. I raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard in order to get more editor input, and also because I thought that your edit had the appearance of an (unintended) violation of NPOV.

I haven't commented further, beyond saying that in my opinion the main page with its "Controversies and Litigation" section was fine before. I don't think that 50K bytes devoted to this topic is excessive; after all, measured in bytes Wikipedia gives Jabba the Hutt more coverage. I also commented that I think that having all that content together in a section of the main page is more convenient for the reader. But if other editors think that the coverage of NSA controversies needs to be trimmed or that some of it should be moved to other sections of the main page, that's okay too. There's clearly a consensus that wholesale removal of the content from the main page is not okay. NealKoblitz (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Jabba comment is an OSE argument and does not apply here. At all. Again, I split the page becuase it was getting WP:TOOBIG, that's all. As for your "wholesale removal of the content from the main page" bit, that's somewhat of a mischaracterisation. Surely you realize that many articles grow to a point that there is too much content for a single page? That's why we split pages. In this case, it could be argued that instead of condensing and hiding controversial content all the way down the "main page" (as you put it), the controversial content now has it's very own page! It can become just as big, if not bigger than the "main page", and the content can be expanded with more detail and sourcing and less concern about size. The subject has it's very own article becuase it's growing, how is that a bad thing? - wolf 14:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

My Jabba comment wasn't intended as an argument, but only as an amusing observation. If you mention to an off-wiki friend that Wikipedia gives more coverage to Jabba the Hutt than to the total of all NSA controversies, they'll think that's pretty funny.

You haven't responded to my earlier point. Relative to the KB-size of the main NSA page, less than 25% devoted to controversies is not at all excessive in view of the extensive press coverage and public interest in those controversies -- compared to relatively little press coverage or public interest in, for example, NSA facilities. If the main page is WP:TOOBIG, then why not cut, trim, or remove other sections rather than the section that readers are most likely to be looking for?

Readers generally go to a topic's main page for information, and expect to find what they're looking for there. Readership of subsidiary pages is much lower. For example, daily pageviews of the CIA main page is almost 10 times greater than for the subsidiary page on CIA controversies that you created when you removed all that content from the main page for the CIA. Moving content to a subsidiary page usually means that fewer readers see it.

Among all the comments here and at the NPOV noticeboard, yours is the only one saying that it was okay to move all the controversy content to a subsidiary page. NealKoblitz (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You haven't really addressed my question above about why you opened a report at npovnb but then continued to post here and not there. As for your "Jabba" remarks, etc.; what your friends might find "funny", and what you believe people are "likely" to look for are not sound arguments for a content dispute. Lastly, any "controversies" content that was available to readers before the split was still available to them after the split. And, (again) if you feel that the "controversies" content is so important, then how does giving that subject it's own article diminish it? If anything, it's a benefit, as I've explained, while otoh you haven't demonstrated how there's a detriment here, (or how it's npov issue, which might expain why you've abandoned that report). And since you're not really addressing the points being made, I'm sure what else I can, or should, add here. - wolf 14:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem not to be reading what I've written. I have answered your questions: [1].

The matter of what readers are likely to be looking for is not a question of "what I believe" -- it can be statistically verified. First, it's simply a fact that the Edward Snowden leaks and controversies connected with them received more extensive news coverage and more public interest than anything else concerning the NSA in the past decade. Second, here are the most recent average daily pageview stats:

the NSA main page: 1439

the Edward Snowden article: 5839

the subsidiary controversies "list" article: 27 1/2

(the last one is averaged over the 17 days since you set it up): The facts speak for themselves.

If you want to decrease the size of the NSA main page, I don't see why you're so fixated on doing it by removing all or almost all of the controversies content, rather than cutting other parts of the main article that are of far less interest to readers. You've never explained your strange preoccupation with the controversies section of this article (and also the CIA and FBI articles). Could you please explain this? Thank you. NealKoblitz (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The trouble with this assessment is that it lacks specificity; many or all of those controversy page views would have come from the main page anyway, and as long as the ToC allows for easy navigate-ability, I think the issue is a little overblown. I generally prefer navigate-ability over DUEness but I don't have a strong stance here and NealKoblitz and North8000 make persuasive points: a POV fork is almost inevitably emergent when the content gets pushed to a secondary article, and the current hugeness of the article is accomodative. The trouble is—organizations like this get involved in specific controversies across time, which in aggregate, begin to appear undue. This is a general issue and I don't have much opinion on the specific matter on this page, but I would invite editors to comment on this over at Wikipedia Talk:Criticism#Criticism and media companies where I have raised this issue regarding media companies, but I think it applies to intelligence agencies as well. I just want some consistency on this; the CNN page went almost a year with a blatant POV fork after removal of the Criticisms section, and now all it has is a link to the secondary article, with no summaries at all. SmolBrane (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubly agree with your bolded points. I aspire to NPOV but given that the Wikipedia system causes failure on that (kudos to your efforts and insights in that area) I tend to focus on the more modest goal of being informative and certainly to not let POV go so far that it ruins even that more modest objective. My angle here not NPOV-related, it is that the topics that are punctuated by what has been bundled into that section constitute an immense range of areas that are central and important to coverage of this topic. As an analogy, how this looks to me is if in the "countries of the world" article, someone mis-organized it by bundling all of the countries with an even number of letters in their name into a separate section, and then a second person wanted to move that section to a new article. The topics touched on by the "incidents" (but not the incidents themselves) are huge areas within the agency, within its organization, and in it's relationship with the US government and it's people. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The section in question covers an immense range of topics. Almost everything related to it's operations with respect to US citizens and residents and US territory, oversight of the agency, how well it conforms to / operates by it's rules, what it's rules are, questions about presidential power vs. laws, and many others, it's use of / interactions with communication and data infrastructure companies, and a history of the NSA's interactions with the public/elected officials etc. in all of these areas, all punctuated by / reported based on specific events where these have come up. (not that there isn't also some cruft in there....I took a bit out.) These are core and major topics to cover in the top level NSA article. It's probably mis-organizartion to put them into a controversies/litigation section. If they were better organized into sections on these individual topics then we wouldn't be having this discussion. And then we would recognize that completely removing coverage of all of these topics from the top level NSA article is tantamount to gutting coverage of the topic. IMO the best thing to do would be to reorganize this material accordingly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. This is why I advocated incorporating the content into the relevant article sections above. Having a separate section, never mind a separate article, entirely devoted to one POV on the article subject (in this case, generally negative views on the institution), creates a significant deviation from maintaining a neutral point of view. This is what the policy stated under Wp:STRUCTURE aims to avoid. We must follow that policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I might slowly / incrementally try to do that. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, since you committed to doing that (I'm referring to N8000, I'm still waiting on CY's promised section expansion from a year ago), might as well, re-direct the split back here for now. It's been over a month already, no need for duplicate content to sit there forever. - wolf 02:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, my previous post said "I might slowly / incrementally try to do that." and I think I've done some work there. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)