Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Espionage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

This is a new effort by me for a WikiProject...please come to help out if you are interested. Cheers, writers-block-14♠(talk) 21:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Intelligence task force

Perhaps the projects should be merged? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Inactive

I've marked this wikiproject as inactive (no activity other than that of its creator, who became inactive shortly after creating this project in May 2010). I'd suggest that the interested editors join the MILHIST task force listed above, as it is more widely known, and at least a little more active. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Espionage articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Espionage articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed userbox

This user is a member of WikiProject Espionage.

- The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Esponiage

I have added my username to the list of members and made it semi-active. Hope we can rebuild this WikiProject back up again. Adamdaley (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal with WikiProject Intelligence

Dear WikiProject Espionage,

I have been in discussion with the WikiProject Council over concerns of WikiProject Espionage, WikiProject Intelligence and WikiProject Military Intelligence. I have suggested that WikiProject Military Intelligence will stay with the WikiProject Military History since Military History as a WikiProject is well established by itself.

My proposal is WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence to be merged as one WikiProject, keeping the WikiProject Espionage name and userbox. I've suggested that WikiProject Intelligence could possibly help fill holes with WikiProject Espionage. Unfortunately, the founder of WikiProject Espionage has not been actively contributing since May 5, 2010. Therefore I've suggested if this "merger" does go ahead that there should be some "structure" of members such as "Co-ordinators" then the more users who join can become normal users or anything else built from scratch. You can see my discussion with the WikiProject Council by going to the talkpage on their main page. Feedback would be appreciated there to keep all of the discussion at one place. Once again feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism

There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the introduction to the article Whataboutism.

You may comment if you wish, at Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump campaign–Russian meeting listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Trump campaign–Russian meeting to be moved to Trump–Veselnitskaya meeting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Notability criteria for spies, and Intel officers?

Like there is WP:MILPEOPLE, is there something for intelligence officers? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Only the "Intel" section of the Military History. Adamdaley (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Pity, this project could have been a bit more pro-active in sustaining something like some standards here JarrahTree 08:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

For the Espionage Biographies just add |Biography=yes to the WP:Espionage template. I wanted this project to be more active I just thought it was only me doing the work on here. Adamdaley (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A small problem is that milhist like ships swallows everything in its wake - they have their own maritime task force and their own intelligence task force - if - indeed there was interest in encouraging more editors to be involved in this project and potential scope (vastly under-represented in articles) it might help to actually explain here or somewhere where the scope of the milhist intelligence and this project either 'fit' or can work - without it going back to the days where there were the two - intelligence and espionage - parallel projects before the change.

So in a sense it is still as it was when two projects existed - there is potential confusion as to whether this project, or the milhist-intelligence task force is in fact where things belong. The hiatus now of some 5 years or more seems unresolved - it would be great to have just one project dealing with it all - but then... the potential arguments about where scope starts and ends could be something that occurs between very few editors - but in the end it might resolve the long standing duplicitous nature of multiple points of reference - and less confusion for outsiders JarrahTree 03:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: Recently, I have been unable to contribute to the project directly; but I do have a lot of articles watchlisted. I am aware of one active editor who also inadvertently contribute to the project substantially.
@JarrahTree: I agree. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to listen to your opinions. It would be great to have more than just myself doing WP:Espionage. What are your ideas of change? Adamdaley (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: Well, I think first of all we should tag the article talkpages with project banner. There are many articles that fall under this project but havent been tagged yet. Once a lot of talkpages are tagged, the editors would automatically be aware of the project. I, along with user:Northamerica1000 recently reactivated WP:MAFIA. We are currently working to tag the talkpages, it can be seen here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that simply tagging ungathered articles is going to resolve the issue - the situation is at least 5 years old. Either someone is going to have to be bold to convince the possible alternative project spaces (milhist intelligence) that a single project space is a good idea rather than multiple - but then from memory the weight of the arguments for the change from parallel espionage and intelligence projects was usually just a conversation spread out over time between self and adam.... Project revival and maintenance is rarely evident in most editors minds when they are on the road to GA and FA - in many cases they dont even acknowledge talk page space.

One would only wish that talk page tagging is a way to alert editors of projects, however I am skeptical JarrahTree 05:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am all for bringing back WP:Espionage. It is a unique Project. However, if we could solve the misrepresentation of WP:Intelligence which redirects to WP:Espionage we could and would have sorted out one less mistake in our WP:Espionage. I've wanted help with WP:Espionage but never thought I would have any help and of course there are several users now have come out and I'm interested in where it could lead too. Adamdaley (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think a more comprehensive explanation as to the existence of the parallel former project of intelligence and the current intel task force at the milhist stable is necessary to even get to square one - the average reader might get very confused as to the plethora of potential areas of the past - and why milhist intel is different from espionage. JarrahTree 05:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) are you trying to say that one of us should talk to them about splicing their chunk? I think thats a good idea. They already have a lot on their plates. They are military/mil history, we are espionage/spying/intelligence. These are our core fields.

Regarding the articles, i think other way around. First work on stubs, the start up, and once its C class; random editors start contributing. Last comment today. Just took zolpidem (at 11:25am duh) —usernamekiran(talk) 06:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thing is others are likely to listen/take notice of adam due to his status in milhist - they have more task forces than people have breakfasts in the year... JarrahTree 06:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am only one person. Yes I have been involved in WP:MILHIST before WP:Espionage. For example, I see people in the CIA, FBI (these can be organisations from around the world, not just limited to USA), that people and technology gathering “intelligence” could be submitted to the “intel” section of WP:MILHIST. Some articles for example Rudolf Abel which I did a few years ago, fell under WP:MILHIST and WP:Espionage. Some will fall under in both. Some will fall under WP:Espionage because they committed Espionage against a country or countries for a particular country. WP:Intelligence does not exist period, it just redirects to WP:Espionage. Adamdaley (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but, the thing is for a clear and very careful explanation of scope and the potential intersections such as that you have just indicated need to be spelt out at both milhist intel and espionage projects so that there is a very clear view of what is what.

We do have in english wikipedia project taggers who do not have english as their native language yet they have vast edit histories of 'word assocition' tagging - where they know literally nothing about what they are tagging -- there has to be a very good indicator to guide the low level understanding into the specifics of the differences - in some cases it could be argued intel is neither milhist or espionage - but simply a nation state or corporate body gathering information as part of a supposedly legitimate information gathering process - which is why scope and where things fit is so damned important JarrahTree 06:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We need to create a page where WP:Espionage is explained well. Adamdaley (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Adamdaley: We need to define the scope of the wikiproject, and make it distinguishable from other (sub)projects including milhistory. Once the scope is defined here, the editors will realise which type of articles are under the scope (they might even tag the talkpages), this will increase the activity at the least. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

An attempt to increase activity again

I have a plan in my mind: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency needs a lot work. I have already explained it on the talkpage of the article.

Our attempt will need 5-6 days, tops. Assuming 1 hour per day is spent on this. Here is the plan:

1. I am already working on a draft of Draft:National Photographic Interpretation Center.
   1. This draf will split the NGIA article.
2. After working on these two articles, we will get NPIC as a standalone article. With a lot of scope for content to be added. Later, we can interwove other officers in the articles, and we can improve their officers' articles as well.

What do you guys think? @JarrahTree and Adamdaley:? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:WITFstub listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WITFstub. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Uanfala 21:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to be moved to Russian Interference with the 2016 United States Presidental election. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Added some articles

I just added web beacon to this WikiProject and listed it as "top" importance. Including this one, there are 7 top importance articles in this project.

I thought web beacon should be a priority because it is the tool or concept by means of organizations during surveillance seek to get information about the activities of all Internet users. All Internet users have been the subject of mass surveillance through web beacons.

I know this project is still waiting to happen, but when it does, I think the top-level concepts describing the tools of surveillance are fair proposals for top priority. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm still here. Not really my are but let me know if there's anything I can do. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thank you for adding it but I very much oppose the "top" priority rating and changed it to mid: only articles that are about very high-level topics of mass surveillance should get that priority set. Specific tools for specific types of mass surveillance should not get this priority. Btw you might be interested in the new surveillance capitalism article (which is a better, more high-level candidate for the 'top' priority; it currently has 'high' set). --Fixuture (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New book: Citizen Spies: The Long Rise of America's Surveillance Society

New book: Citizen Spies: The Long Rise of America's Surveillance Society by Joshua Reeves, 2017, New York University Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage

It is proposed that this project is merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage. This would benefit both projects which have a similar scope, no content would be lost in merge, and it could be hoped to revive interest in this subject area. Any concerns should be posted here. Dysklyver 15:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Proposed" by who, exactly? -Indy beetle (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Me, I'm just used to speaking in the third person, suggestions to this effect have been before but no actual discussion has yet happened. Dysklyver 19:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm not entirely opposed, but I think it's important to consider that Espionage deals primarily with foreign surveillance, whereas mass surveillance often has the connotation of domestic surveillance ("governments spying on their own people"). -Indy beetle (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing a complete renovation of the layout of Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage at the same time, perhaps get some activity happening, I think that the main programs like Tempora and their US equivalents spy on just about everyone on the planet now, and that with the increased terror threats, domestic espionage is a better known fact than it was. I'm not saying its an exact match, but it seems that the two could sit quite neatly together. Dysklyver 20:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this project is under revitalization, though I must admit I was always limited in my activities here (mostly stuff related to Total Information Awareness) so there's little assistance I can provide, but I'll do what I can. @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: for future reference its probably best if you waited longer before taking major restructuring actions. With a project so large as Mass Surveillance, I would've waited longer to see what consensus would develop among the remaining members concerning the merge proposal before relocating it. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Unmerge plan There appears to be some resistance to merging these projects in this way, mostly because of the differing scope - which is making things like the to-do list unworkable as a joint endeavor. so I will unmerge the projects soon. I would like to keep the tabbed/subpage layout if nobody minds too much. I am seriously considering the merits of a joint talk page / joint collaboration area. If anyone has any ideas on this, please say. Dysklyver 13:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Navigation header

Any feedback on the navigation header would be good, as we will probably end up with three related but seperate projects with a joint umbrella, the existing navigation header could be replaced with something more like User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Templates/Tab header. I still haven't got the images to display correctly yet but you should be able to see the idea. Dysklyver 15:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Each project ought to then have its own set of interconnected subpages, for which I haven't made a navigation template yet. Dysklyver 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Summaries of recent updates

1. Few hours ago, the project page was restored to its previous version. —usernamekiran(talk)
   1. After a few hours from now (around 8-9 hours from now), I will selectively add some content from the version that has been undone. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Revitalisation

Old members list

• Writersblock14 - last edit 5 May 2010.
• Sp33dyphil
• N Wustenfuchs
• Y Adamdaley
• L.J. Tibbs
• Matthewrbowker
• Y Aboudaqn: I create or add to biographies on spies or spy-related people very regularly: feel free to visit "my" page and scan names listed --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• The Bushranger
• Smoth 007 - last edit 18 November 2014
• sasnfbi1234
• Y usernamekiran 
• Coretheapple 
• Rybec  - last edit 27 March 2014
• Piotrus 
• WhisperToMe
• Petrarchan47 
• Sn1per 
• Wnt 
• Y Guy Macon  Still active in the field, working on hardware used in secure cryptography in real life. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• N Hanibal911
• Jehochman 
• N2e  Hi all. Saw my name added here. Not likely to be active at all in WikiProject Espionage as of Oct 2017. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC) ]
• 0x0077BE 
• N A1candidate 
• Tothwolf 
• Spirit of Eagle 
• DrFleischman
• DylanLacey
• Rsrikanth05
• Balaenoptera musculus 
• F3ndot 
• Dainomite 
• Hendrick 99 
• Whizz40 
• User:CCLBAB
• Ford MF 
• felixphew  Hi - I don't know why my name got added here, but by pure coincidence I'm going to have a lot of free time on my hands once exams are over (in a month or so). Let me know if anyone wants help with anything, as it's been a while since I've done any Wikipedia-ing. felixphew ^{talk contribs} 01:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• N WoodBook90 
• Kencf0618 
• Tony Tan 98 
• Lexholland 
• Tokelove 
• gating 
• Tío Ferna 
• Y Indy beetle 

Task Find who out of this list is still active, get new people to join. Dysklyver 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am still active and about, but I have never been involved here much. I'll watchlist the page now :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I'm really active anymore. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 02:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Reviving the project, and "merging"/scope

Hi.
A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver's contributions are very much refreshing, and appriciated. I think, before working on the project pages, we should discuss and decide what is to be merged here, and what is not to. We also need to discuss about the projects that are currently being handled as "task force" of other projects. Once the scope of this project is clear, we can then design the pages appropriately. Pinging Guy Macon, Indy beetle, Adamdaley, and JarrahTree. —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 12:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree - what has happened over the years has been inertness and silence - the fact something is happening - is great.

I see the precedent of themes that evolved around maritime projects over time - things chopped and changed a little in the last 10 years.

It would be very good to see where maybe some previous projects need to be redirects and no content from them carried over.. just a suggestion JarrahTree

I just commented above without seeing these comments o_0
I think it would make sense to keep the project pages like the to do list separate, at least to an extent since there is no limit to how many pages we use. there is no technical issue with having 2 or 3 pages each dedicated to a specific part of the project. However the joint discussion/collaboration area is going to be more active through being central to several similar projects, so that we ought to keep. Similarly WP:SPY should be our joint landing page, since it is the only memorable shortcut we have.

I see three main project areas at the moment. Espionage/Milhist intel/Mass surveillance. But we could review this. Dysklyver 13:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: I am opposed to the changes you've made. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thats ok, I kept the old projects in case someone preferred them, they are at:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage/Archive/Project page 2010-2017
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage/Archive/Mass Surveillance

Dysklyver 15:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. The changes made by A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver are very confusing. And I also tried to point out they are not result of any discussions. Dysklyver, kindly do not make further changes. I am willing to make changes, but with proper discussions, and systematic planning. If it is not done like that, we will end up editing pages, and making new things on a every day basis. As I've told you earlier, I'm sorry but I will undo most of the changes to this project after ~30 hours from now. —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 06:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of the confusion is that I have created alot of new pages when previously there were only two. Dysklyver 08:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

box

• I like this box!  ;) --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

Hi, I made various changes to various parts of the project in various ways. In short it was disorganized.
This is to actually discuss what to do. Basically there are 3 main issues Scope/Merge, and Layout.
Any comments would be appreciated.

The current scope of all 'spy stuff' very technical term is divided into three projects, as shown in my ^ headers. Some aspects are probably also covered to a lesser extent elsewhere - any known projects not already identified should be mention here.

Options re scope/merge

1. Merge everything into MilHist as a task-force
2. Merge everything into Espionage as a WikiProject
   1. I recommend retention of "Espionage" as its own WikiProject --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
   2. I also recommend revising the contents of "Infobox spy" but don't know how to go about that -- recommendations and instructions welcome --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Keep all three sections separate with a joint collaboration page
4. Do nothing

Options re layout

1. Do nothing (single page)
2. Tabbed layout (approx 7 subpages, each with specific content)
3. Interactive layout (approx 30+ subpages, this allows processes and tutorials to be included)
4. A mixture (lots of pages but not uniform)

|Dysklyver 14:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

I think option 3 for a joint collaboration page is our best option. It causes the least confusion and provides a nice separate setting for discussions, and I think its easier to obtain consensus for than option 2. Personally I think option 1 (merge into MilHist) is out of the question, as there's plenty of intelligence/espionage/surveillance material out there that has little to no military element. Once a scope option is decided upon I think we can move to the layout discussions. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Here are my thoughts:
  1. At the given moment, "joint collaboration page" wouldnt be great idea. But redirecting (maybe soft) other talkpages to this talkpage can be a good idea.
  2. Creating a lot of sub-pages will be confusing for other editors, difficult for us to maintain, and inconvenient in general for everybody. I think squeezing all the content in fewer pages would be best. We can split the pages when necessary.
  3. I think, instead of focusing on layout, we should try to initiate discussion for merging military history's task force in espionage. We should do the rest of the stuff after that. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, in my opinion I find "WikiProject Espionage" as a very constructive WikiProject. Unfortunately, since the creation of the "WikiProject Espionage" there has been very few "active" members. I also find it interesting because if people continue being "spies" or charged of "espionage" then, this WikiProject should stand by itself and make it known that a combination of "Military History Intelligence" and "Espionage" can be both. Not just one. Hence the great improvement to Rudolf Abel (by myself) a few years ago. I've also been intending to expand his counterpart Reino Häyhänen which is on my subpage here. Because Rudolf Abel was, indeed both Military and a spy convicted of "espionage". Adamdaley (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:IP camera#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017}}}}}}|the move discussion]].  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Debate on 1963 Iraq coup

Hello Wikiproject Espionage, there is a debate about Wikipedia's representation of the 1963 Iraq coup going on at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, as well at at the Talk page of the "US involvement in regime change" article. I think your input would be constructive.

Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus-seeking discussion notice

Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notification

There is an RfC at the John Bolton article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Activity rating

There seem to be infernal template designations of this on again and off again exercise in farce - anyone care to comment ? JarrahTree 00:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I did this. So yeah, the project is on again. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm here and probably wondering who is doing what on what articles relating to "Espionage" and to WikiProject Espionage portal. Adamdaley (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Udo Ulfkotte needs assessment

The article Udo Ulfkotte needs to be assessed. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Help with wiki post structure

Hi,

I'm trying to write an article on Disguise Techniques. This is my first article, and I could use some help on the structure. Should I structure an article in a list style or is there another format I should use? I was thinking about having an introduction with a bit of history and then go into different techniques.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asantulli (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Asantulli. I'd avoid lists if possible: I tended to overuse them in my earliest articles, although admittedly some content does lend itself to a list format. Your proposed structure sounds good to me, i.e. an introduction, then history, then sections for different techniques. However, rather than writing a separate article, have you considered adding a section to the already existing Disguise article, under the heading 'Techniques'? Regardless of how you decide to go about things, it might be useful to read the advice at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Article development. Also, there seems to be a lack of replies here, so it might be an idea to post a query at a more highly trafficked page, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk or Wikipedia:Teahouse. Best of luck! Meticulo (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Who is active at WikiProject Espionage?

I want to know who is active and willing to work with me since I've been the main one here since 2010-present. I can tell from the last few years people have had their own ideas, but have never asked me what I think it should be. Adamdaley (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Nobody active, or even watching WikiProject Espionage, huh? Adamdaley (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

:) Well I am. :) SoftwareThing (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I am watching. Silently Watching... It's an Espionage Thing.

Seriously, though, I am a bit of a specialist -- I design cryptographic hardware and countermeasures against hardware-based side-channel attacks -- so I don't have a lot to say regarding most issues that come up here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a crypto wikiproject and compsec wikiproject ; and aspects of this project are also covered at WP:WikiProject Military history/Intelligence task force / WP:MILHIST / WP:LE / WP:WikiProject Mass surveillance ; so there is some overlap (and there's WP:007) -- (No I am not watching this page) -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adamdaley. I'm watching but not a member of the project. I've occasionally made minor contributions to espionage-related articles (for example Arthur S. Moreau Jr., Iran–Contra affair, and Russian research vessel Yantar). I'm also hoping one day to get around to adding to Directorate of Research and Civil Affairs. - Meticulo (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamdaley, SoftwareThing, Guy Macon, and Meticulo: I am a regular, but my activity has decreased on enwiki. I will be back again with more time after 2-3 months. I regulary used to edit articles that fall under this wikiproject. And I have this page watchlisted too, not sure how i overlooked this discussion. I think JarrahTree is also active in the project. Also, espionage portal is currently at MfD, I have posted a link at the bottom of the page. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Percy Glading

This article—of interest to this project—is currently undergoing a peer review. All project members are welcome to comment there. Thank you! ——SerialNumber54129 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Creation Help: Faked sabotage of de Havilland factory

Hello all,

I'm trying to write an article on the faked sabotage of the de Havilland factory "carried out" by the WWII spy Eddie Chapman. It is mentioned in the Eddie Chapman article, but I felt as if a lot was left out and the backstory of the sabotage itself warranted an article of its own. This is my first article, and I could use some help on the structure. Would structuring the article in a background, execution, aftermath format be appropriate for this, and does anyone have any general tips/guidance to offer for this article creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedahl03 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Notification of deletion discussion

There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Espionage (2nd nomination). —usernamekiran(talk) 18:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've got ideas of how to make it active again. It depends on if people want to make it active. I've tried to maintain it. Adamdaley (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Categories and red links

There are considerable parts of category trees about spies that do not have espionage project tags on talk pages.

There is a formidable list of red links at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Espionage/Open_tasks

Enjoy! JarrahTree 14:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Black Cube

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Black Cube. Sdkb (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about Eli Cohen

You are invited to join the discussion about the inclusion of comments about Eli Cohen (brought on by the recent Netflix series about him) here: Talk:Eli_Cohen#RfC 22:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Link to Template:National intelligence agencies

Hello everyone,
In this template, the link to the military intelligence agency of ROC (Taiwan) is red-linked, because it's link to the current name of the agency: "Military Intelligence Bureau under Ministry of National Defense". We have an article about the former agency that is: National Bureau of Investigation and Statistics. I'd insert a link to the existent article, so we don't have a red link, and so if somebody will split after or rename, or so... we change after. I write this text to inform you about my demarche, so you can know and answer before I decide.
Thank you for reading,
--Anas1712 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S.: Maybe there's some french words or french sentences form, so sorry.

CIA: agents vs. officers

Probably not a big deal, but I thought I might ask those interested in this project to keep an eye out for the term "CIA agent" when editing various articles. The CIA considers all employees of their agency to be "officers". Various articles and books, particularly those that tend to stress the sensationalistic, use "agent" in various contexts. I haven't bothered trying to fix this when "CIA agent" is used in a fictional context. Cheers! - Location (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The correct use is "CIA agent" since that is the term used internationally. "CIA agent" also appears in Google searches twice as often as "CIA officer." In fact most of the rest of the world considers the CIA to be a terrorist organization with the Christian terrorism committed by the CIA at Abu Ghraib. SoftwareThing (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

”Agent” is frequently used interchangeably by a lot of sources to mean someone employed by the CIA, someone contracted to work for the CIA, and someone with whom the CIA has contact or receives information (whether foreign or domestic). Not sure how less specific is “correct” or better for Wikipedia. Also not sure what Abu Ghraib has to do with that. - Location (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

you folks might find a better response or others interested at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency JarrahTree 04:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, however n proposed change to the extant Project article has been made so there's nothing to consider here. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hig problem establishing accepted usages of terminology - and the issue of usage in fictitious frameworks versus real practice of terms used by the authority itself, ring through a wide range of subjects here on wp - what the reader is used to in popular culture, versus some form of institutional practice - it potentially is a circular argument as to which usage ends up being used. JarrahTree 14:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Google has 62.9M hits for "cia officer" and 168M for "cia agent". But beyond that, we should probably be going with what sources say for any given ref.

"In fact most of the rest of the world considers the CIA to be a terrorist organization with the Christian terrorism committed by the CIA at Abu Ghraib. SoftwareThing 23:51, 14 June 2020" - that nnonsense has nothing to do with this topic and should probably be deleted.
JMHO - wolf 03:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal regarding NSO Group and Pegasus (spyware)

Talk:NSO Group#Merger proposal: merge Pegasus (spyware) into the appropriate section of NSO Group Notrium (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Drovorub malware toolkit

I've just started an article on Drovorub, the recently discovered Linux malware toolkit from APT28. I'd welcome help expanding and improving the article. -- The Anome (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sayanim or Sayan (not anti-Semantic)

Mossad Katsas utilise Sayanim, singular, Sayan,(Hebrew: סייענים, lit. Helpers, Assistants) for their operations. The concept of Sayanim was started by Meir Amit. They are recruited to provide logistical support for Mossad operations. Sayanim are often non-Israeli citizens but have full loyalty to the state of Israel and can be a dual national. The usage of Sayanim allows the Mossad to operate with a slim budget yet conduct vast operations worldwide. The support that sayanim provide is unpaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueD954 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposal to merge

Hi, I generally operate on my lonesome without much community interaction, so I don't know if this is an appropriate place for this, but I'd like to propose the merger of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Intelligence_task_force and WikiProject Espionage. I have no idea which is a better fit to be combined into the other, but the only individuals remaining within the Intelligence task force are myself and one other individual, and these are somewhat closely related areas. I have no idea how this sort of thing is done, but I generally care about supporting the understanding of civilian and military intelligence tradecraft, and the history of espionage, and this corner of wikipedia seems to be wilting away. Not trying to step on toes, but then there are few toes left to step on, so I'm trying to be WP:BOLD. Just a thought. - Abovfold (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Abovfold, perhaps you could try posting also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to see if they have any objections or suggestions? I'm not sure of the protocol for these things either. Meticulo (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

...also, I've taken the liberty of moving both our comments from the main project page to this talk page. Meticulo (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The history of the process of mucking up original intentions of projects and playing with scopes and shifts and changes has seen multiple messes in the ships/maritime area.

It would be appreciated if the consideration that many projects in wikipedia have had as weird histories that dont change simply because one editor has a problem.

The name, the scope and positioning of Intelligence/espionage was a saga some years ago, and the life history of the issues raised sometimes get hijacked with little to no consultation. Some editors who have supported this project in the past do not turn up on call, there is no guarantee that yet another hijack will be welcomed. (That is not meant to be personal, it has happened in the past, and likely that just because there is an urge to pitch it into milhist (which has at times a very quiet and close to no maintenance done inside its project - which in itself is never a very encouraging sign of its veracity despite its size) someone some time in the history of wikipedia will haul it back to one of the older names of intel or espionage

There is nothing wrong with having the two separate - military intell, and the espionage projects - I would defer to the editors who have worked on the intel and espionage projects from way back (not recent low edit eds, just a bias towards opinions from those who have seen the comings an goings) - I know some might take a time to respond. However, the shift I believe is a very hohum, and expect it to be moved out again into the open down the line, so having seen it all before, I really think that leaving it alone and maintaining and adding all the large selection of unincluded material that lies out in wikipedia space about espionage and spies that has not been brought in - far more relevant imho. Thanks for leaving comments around - lets hope this is not a quiet conversation of few editors.

Hahah - the spooks of real life who watch this project must think that they dont have to worry about the haphazard far from thorough and incomplete coverage - it goes quiet so often. JarrahTree 10:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand what yall are getting at, I only raise this because I was cleaning up the list of active users listed on the Milhist page, there was only one other user beside myself who had even used the site in the last two years or so. Makes one worry. Hopefully anons will carry on the work of the project. Though I have it on pretty good authority that real spooks do lurk these projects from time to time. I was once informed that one of my big edits had been used as background explanation for something up on JWICS.. you never know what the impact of the work you quietly shoot into the ether here can be. Abovfold (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:CIA activities in Iraq#Requested move 1 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CIA activities in Iraq#Requested move 1 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Pegasus (spyware) has an RFC

Pegasus (spyware), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)