Talk:United States Intelligence Community/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about United States Intelligence Community. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move 19 March 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It might make sense to have an article about the lower-case intelligence community (concept dab, anyone?), but this one is about a specific entity. The article may need some cleanup with this in mind. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

United States Intelligence Community → United States intelligence community – Requesting move per WP:COMMONNAME, since a solid majority of reliable sources (though not all) refer to the IC using lowercase letters. The move was opposed by Thewolfchild though I don't know the basis for their objection. R2 (bleep) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose. Given it has an official seal, it is presumably accepted as a proper name, so should be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - same reasons as above, proper name, as given in the official seal. - wolf 19:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

There may be a broader issue here in that this article appears to conflate two separate but closely related things. On the one hand we have a specific federation of federal agencies along with an administrative office that has the seal and runs intelligence.gov. On the other hand we have the broader community (lowercase) that The Washington Post source is talking about, which includes contractors, former intelligence officials, etc. who might have security clearances. It seems most government sources are referring to former, whereas most independent news sources are referring to the latter. I don't know how to address this issue, just putting it out there for discussion. R2 (bleep) 17:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear from the lead (with the exception of the final paragraph/blurb about the "wider community"), infobox and indeed most of the content, that this article is about the "federation of federal agencies". But if that is not clear, then the answer is to address that in the prose, not move the page title. - wolf 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there a bunch of the cited sources referring to the "intelligence community" (no caps) and appearing to be talking about the broader community--not just the Post article cited in that last paragraph of the lead. So if we're going to say the article isn't about that then that content should be removed, I'd think. R2 (bleep) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In that while the article is set up to document the "IC" made up of 16/17 federal agencies, that last paragraph about the "wider community", or "ic", that was plopped onto the end of the lead is where the topic becomes blurred. Perhaps a re-write, with a sub-section about the "wider community", including said paragraph from the lead along with specific refs, near the bottom of the page, would make the article clearer and on point. Readers would learn about the specific "IC" from the start, then conclude by learning about the wider "ic". With the information organized more effectively, there would be no need for a content fork, page move or... the likely future merge request. - wolf 06:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a bad approach. I think before we did that we'd want to look through at least the cited sources and try to figure out which "intelligence community" they're referring to. My concern is that there may be considerably more RS coverage of the broader community than of the federation of agencies, which might suggest we take a different approach. Or, it might not be clear from the sources which "intelligence community" they're referring to, which could complicate things. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thewolfchild has a point. I suspect that most mentions are informal and broad, but when content clearly refers to when the official 16-17 agencies are speaking or acting in an official capacity, then just capitalize it in the article. Otherwise, if it's a general reference, the caps aren't really necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Right but then we're mixing two different concepts. I'd be in favor of distinguishing them, but how we organize the article depends on how the sources treat the concepts. If the vast majority of mentions in reliable sources are about the broader community, then I wouldn't support relegating that content to an oversized section of an article that's presented as being chiefly about the federation. R2 (bleep) 21:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence is not a member of the IC. Rather, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which resides within this Office, is specifically conferred the status of membership. It is important to correct the error, which I tried to do but it was reverted, most likely because I didn't provide a source (and naturally, I would not object if this is the reason). However, the office is specifically identified at the ODNI's website here: https://www.dni.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71&Itemid=586 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:d68a:ea00:5da4:e741:97a2:b280 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)