Talk:United States Intelligence Community/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Agency order

@Thewolfchild: I don't think it's meaningful to keep the order of the agencies from the cited source. The source lists them alphabetically, but we aren't even using the same naming conventions so it doesn't even come out alphabetical in our own list. I propose that it's much more meaningful to list the agencies grouped by department, then by parent agency. This make it easier to tell at a glance where the agencies fall in the government, and has the added benefit of placing nearly all the military agencies next to each other. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningful"... it's just a list, and a fairly short one at that. It's presently in the order that the agencies are listed in the attached ref. Whether they are alphabetical or not is basically irrelevant as it's a multi-column list that is sortable. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC) (by the way, "ping" only works if you add a new signature. I wasn't notified, I just happened to see the change on my watchlist)

In the ref they're alphabetical by parent agency, but the source is inconsistent about listing the immediate parent agency or the department. In our article we're listing them by the name of the actual agency, therefore the order appears essentially random. If you wanted them to be alphabetical by the name we're using it would make sense, even though I still think it's better to group together agencies from the same department. In any case, it's never a requirement to preserve the source's order for a list like this, and my point is that the order should be whatever is presentationally best for the reader. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that that adjacent graphic also lists the agencies in the same order as the ref (and the current table), so I wonder if there's something to that? With that in mind, it certainly makes sense to leave them in the current order. And again, the table is sortable anyway. I also added a column with date each agency was established, to give a sense of both longevity and growth... and there was some space to fill. Another advantage to the sortable table is that they can ranked in ascending or descending order. Just another helpful parameter... I'd like to see what, if any, feedback the community has regarding this improvement. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 09:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

16 or 17 agencies?

Our first ref lists 17 agencies, but the article mentions 16. Several RS mention the number 17. Which is it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that our 8th ref lists 16, so does the number 17 come from including the ODNI? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw the figure 17 in the media only days ago, and that's why I came here. Never mind -it is massive, but the unit that is leading the 5 Eyes isn't mentioned, so maybe that's the 17th? While I am here I have been taken aback by this sentence: "According to a 2008 study by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, private contractors make up 29% of the workforce in the U.S. intelligence community and account for 49% of their personnel budgets.[4]" Weren't we always told that private contractors are cheaper than public servants? What happened there? 2001:8003:A072:4800:5D0E:87D5:1BA3:7E5 (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This article says that the United States Intelligence Community has 16 members. The article on the Director of National Intelligence says it has 17 members.2604:2000:C682:2D00:149B:6483:85F:76BF (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The IC website (HOW THE IC WORKS) states that the "Intelligence Community is made up of 17 elements that each focus on a different aspect of our common mission." The ODNI website (WHAT WE DO) states that the "U.S. Intelligence Community is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations, including the ODNI." The core mission of the ODNI within the community is, according to the ODNI website (MISSION, VISION & GOALS), to "lead the IC in intelligence integration, forging a community that delivers the most insightful intelligence possible." Based upon this information, I made a bold edit, which was reverted. I have refined what I wrote prerviously (for clarity), and have again modified the lead and table of IC members to accurately reflect the structure of IC. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The ODNI isn't itself an "intelligence agency", it's an administrative body, (or agency if you like) that over-sees the 16 actual intelligence agencies. Yes, it's a part of the IC community, but many of the sources are clear about what the ODNI is and isn't. That would be the first of several proposed changes that should be discussed here before revamping a stable article with major changes. - ^theWOLFchild 23:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

So I make changes that are in-sync with reliable sources and answer concerns raised by other editors, and you throw them all out and instruct me to discus any changes prior to making them? I try to only make well-reasoned, factual and constructive edits; did everything in my edit miss the mark? Drdpw (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You basically did the same the thing with the DEA Intelligence article. You found one source where is was referred to by another term, and despite all the sources in place confirming the official name, you go and move the page. You didn't consider discussing that first? Here, we have sources in place confirming the content of the article as written. You find a source that says something... somewhat different, and you start a major re-write. What about the reliable sources already in place that your edits are in conflict with? That is why a revert was called for. Once you've been reverted, you go to the talk page, not back to the article to do yet another whole re-write, slightly different, but basically the same. The article stays 'as is' while discussion takes place. You've been here long enough to know better. I've seen many of your edits and have always found them to be sound improvements. These past few days have been... surprising. Anyways, yes, some refs say there are 17 agencies. The ODNI is an agency and it is part of the IC, in a sense, but it is not an "intelligence agency" like the others. It's administrative, it oversees and co-ordinates the 16 agencies. By dismissing sources and graphics that depict the 16 agencies, and stating there are 17 based on tenuous refs at best is misleading. In both your edits, you keep removing the graphic with the 16 agency seals, but you left the one with the 16 seals surrounding the seal of the ODNI, what does that image tell us? Or the seal in the infobox... it's surrounded by 16 stars, wonder why? Look, if you want to include the ODNI, be clear about what it is, and what it isn't. - ^theWOLFchild 02:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The same as everyone else says - it is 17 agencies. It's semantics and pointless to say it is 16 agencies headed by a separate one. In fact, the OIG for the ODNI routinely reports that the ODNI is the top intelligence "agency" in the intelligence community. You log into the IC website and it says 17 agencies, but you're making this page out to say 16 with the idea that you know better than they advertise. It's ridiculous. It is 17 agencies, as it says everywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastforward88 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Considered necessary by whom?

I tagged the first sentence in the lead because

1. It is not clear who considers the "activities" necessary. The executive orders establishing the IC were issued by the Reagan and Bush jr. administrations. That would seem to make it a Republican thing at first glance. Not saying that is the exact state of affairs, but however the wording is changed, please provide a source.
2. What "activities"? No way that the many different things the IC does are considered necessary by everyone to the same degree. Please specify the activities in the article body.

Paradoctor (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

These comments are absurdly focused on syntax. the "activities" of the IC in the US exist in nearly every major power on earth, they also date to the 1920's for FBI counterintelligence, including under FDR who was a Democrat and the 1947 National Security Act which established the CIA which was signed by Harry Truman, also a Democrat, so point one is discredited. other IC units, such as NRO and NSA needed technology to catch up. these notes should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.164.122 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Department of State is listed in the graphics but not in the list of 16 agencies, with the 17th agency being the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.170.1 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The Dept. of State is on the list, see; " Bureau of Intelligence and Research". - ^theWOLFchild 07:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4