Talk:Intelligence cycle (target-centric approach)

Needs connection to existing Wikipedia work on intelligence analysis, with comparisons and contrasts

While I've edited a bit to make it more compatible with Wikipedia citation and writing style, I'm concerned that this is orphaned from all the other Wikipedia work on intelligence analysis. It has a flavor of being an advertisement, and suggesting, without direct comparison, that it is superior to all other methods.

This should certainly reference work including:

• Analytic tradecraft notebook: http://www.i2inc.com/Products/Analysts_Notebook/
• Davis: https://www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/pdf/OPNo5.pdf
• Heuer: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/psych-intel/index.html
• Krizan: http://www.scip.org/2_getinteless.php.
• Johnston: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/analytic-culture-in-the-u-s-intelligence-community/full_title_page.htm

See the existing article, at the top of a hierarchy, on intelligence cycle management. That article, and subordinate ones on intelligence cycle management, etc., also recognize problems in the classic cycle and discuss them. Please look at sources there, and at least make this an alternative such as analysis of competing hypotheses, and even consider merging it into an existing intelligence article.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding fact templates

Given this article is about Clark's method, when a {{fact}} tag is placed on one of Clark's claims, simply referencing a page in Clark's book is inadequate. See WP:V and WP:RS for guidance. For the tag to be removed, you need to verify the assertion with an independent reputable source.

I haven't read the book and can't speak to his assertions, but it's not as if many of these problems with the traditional intelligence cycle are not being discussed in other articles. Intelligence cycle management#Models of Intelligence and Information for conflict between NATO and US models. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

Might I recommend that this article be retitled Intelligence cycle (target-centric approach)? The article is obviously not hawking the book, so it isn't an ad, but the title might mislead folks into believing that it advocates the book rather than its topic. Hi, Howard. Fancy meeting you here. --Pat (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I just sent a hopefully constructive email to some of the Mercyhurst faculty, urging a cooperative approach rather than what feels like people assigned to "post something at Wikipedia" and not getting involved in collaborative creation. Believe me, I can regale everyone with things I don't like at Wikipedia, but the fact that the recent group of posts probably come from people with some relevant background suggests that they may be able to achieve a higher standard. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The students are quite sharp and will participate in online collaboration as they see fit. Their constraints are that they are new Wiki editors and the project is relatively short term. I expect we might gain a few Wikipedians in the process. Everyone has the right to add content to Wikipedia, and their choices of internal linkages are discretionary. Like Pickard, I expect they will resist being absorbed into the Borg. --Pat (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sherman Kent

What is Sherman Kent's specific connection to the intelligence cycle or the target-centric approach? Did the Kent Center ever comment on Clark's concept? Did Kent develop the original cycle idea? --Pat (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have my copy of Kent's book at hand, so I can't say if he introduced the cycle concept, although I'm fairly sure he first described the process of national estimates. IIRC, Davies did discuss the general intelligence cycle in Kent Center papers, but these Wikipedia articles are the first I've seen on Clark.

Unfortunately, I still don't understand exactly what Clark is proposing, and how it differs from numerous attempts to avoid a wall between analysts and consumers. The Congressional testimony says it's good, but not why.

As far as who first discussed the cycle, I don't know. It certainly was present in military intelligence manuals in the sixties; I suspect it came out of the military because I don't remember it being discussed in strategic intelligence seminars in the late sixties. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

History merge

There was a cut-and-paste move from Target-Centric Approach To Intelligence to Intelligence cycle (target-centric approach) On April 29, 2008. I've merged the histories together into one continuous whole, and I've also restored comments from both talk pages here. Cool Hand Luke 17:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)