Talk:National Security Committee

Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page?

Will make this into a disambiguation page once I fix all the links (they're all for the Kazakhstan one now).

• National Security Committee (Australia), part of the Australian parliament [1]
• National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan
• National Security Committee (Kyrgyzstan)
• National Security Committee (Turkmenistan)

And probably others ... cab (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• In January 2014 User:PalaceGuard008 redirected this to National Security Council, with an inadequate edit summary. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PalaceGuard008&diff=613808820&oldid=593089969 requested they return here, and explain themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Geo Swan for inviting me to the discussion, although it has clearly taken me a long time to come around. The point I feel strongly about, is that "National Security Committee" should not be redirected to any particular committee, and I think there is consensus on that.

As to where it should redirect: "National Security Committees" and "National Security Councils" are substantively similar, whether or not you feel a slight negative connotation to the former. That was the reason for my redirection. I think it is more helpful to a user to be redirected to National Security Council, where they can read a bit more about this type of institution, and any further National Security Committees should be listed there. But if others think it would be more helpful for them to be simply referred to a list of institutions called National Security Committees, I would not object too vigorously either. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd have no problem having "National Security Committees" and "National Security Councils" redirect to the same base article, if they were "substantively similar". But I can't agree. Most institutions with name that translates into "National Security Committee" are (phrasing this to avoid negative connotations) are counter-intelligence agencies. If I am not mistaken the KGB's name, translated into English is "National Security Committee". Where-as the most notable "National Security Council" is the USA's NSC, which is more like a subcommittee of the President's cabinet. Its responsibilities are more high-level planning and oversight, with no operational role, and its responsibilities go beyond counter-intelligence, including military planning and operations, and foreign intelligence, and other threats too.

So no, I can't agree that they are "substantially similar". Geo Swan (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As I read your comments, your objections are based on your impression of the two names, which is in turn based on the English translation of the KGB, versus one instance from the US. Given the numerous instances in which these names are used around the world, I am not sure this is a representative basis on which to resolve a general naming issue. The KGB article says it should be translated as "Committee for State Security", so if you are taking a literalist approach (as you seem to do), it is not a relevant example. But I would submit that nothing turns on that: "Council" and "Committee" are synonyms, and the way they are used to translate foreign terms are at best haphazard.

I do not pretend to know how the name is used in every country that uses such a name. To ensure that we are all going off a comprehensive understanding of the factual basis, here are some instances of how "National Security Committee" is used around the world, just going off the first few pages of a Wikipedia search for those words:

• • • • • Australia: a parliamentary committee and also a cabinet committee
        • Kazakhstan: an intelligence agency
        • Turkmenistan: former name of a ministry
        • Tajikistan: a security agency
        • Croatia: a parliamentary committee
        • New Zealand: a cabinet committee
        • Ireland: a cabinet committee
        • Kenya: a parliamentary committee
        • Hungary: a parliamentary committee
        • Latvia: a parliamentary committee
        • United States: a congressional committee
        • Egypt: a parliamentary committee
        • Turkey: a military committee
        • Romania: a parliamentary committee
        • Fourth Republic of South Korea (historical): an interim governing body
        • United Kingdom: a cabinet committee

My reading of this survey is that usage of this name is varied - it can be an executive organ, or it can be a legislative body, or it can be something else. In some countries (especially in the Anglophone Western democracies in the list), it is similar to the type of body that the National Security Council describes, in other countries, it is not.

The same is true of "National Security Councils" around the world: some fit the description in that article, others do not. On this basis I still think there is no clear reason to treat the two differently, but I am interested to hear your proposal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)