Talk:Private intelligence agency/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

May 2008

Anyone See Keith Olberman tonight? He cites an "SIT Intel Group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.43.233 (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2008

September 2009

Citation needed for Occidental Intelligence Group, the only place they appear with Google is this wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.108.250 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 September 2008

Agency List

I know the prohibition on directories. But I could see value in having a small list of notable firms in this field. I was the first question I asked after arriving to the page. 198.228.209.112 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2011

This page has no content of value. No Sources. And should be deleted 76.105.237.121 (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No it is potentially very important - Privatisation of security - conglomerates et al. I will bring up to spec.... But hell if I know how to use the edit mode properly... Etikx (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

Page needs expanding...

Yes, a definition and a list of agencies is good and all, but shouldn't there be more on the topic? Like criticism over privacy, run-ins with social activists, and other such things...--92.114.148.141 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Verrimus

@ScrapIronIV: - WP:LISTCOMPANY states;

A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.

so, where's the part that says you must remove that entry? - ^theWOLFchild 21:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The part where this list requires notability. You see the word "unless" in there? Notability is established through article creation. I would have been fine with linking to a section on the article you cited - which is explicitly encouraged in WP:REDLINK, even though you cited it as a reason to delete. So, go ahead and write the article first. If you are defining something as notable, it must have an article. Scr★pIron^IV 21:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, where in the guideline, that you cited, does it say that? In fact, doesn't. The suppressed instruction at the top of that list states; DO NOT ADD ANY COMPANIES HERE WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE ATTACHED OR LINKED ARTICLE, OR THEY WILL BE REMOVED ...see the word "or" in there? The company has not one, but four sources attached, more than enough to merit inclusion. The only one here "deleting" anything here is you, (repeatedly). How do you expect an article to get created if you link it to another page? Or remove it outright? That entry should be re-added. - ^theWOLFchild 22:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You have the sources; it would take you less time to write the stub than to argue about it. THEN you can re-add the entry. The header says "NOTABLE" companies, not just companies - which requires vetting of notability. That is done through article creation. You know this as well as anyone - you are smart, and you have been here a fairly long while. Scr★pIron^IV 22:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Riiiight, so just because whoever wrote that section header, happened to add the word "notable", somehow justifies you repeatedly removing that entry? The guideline you cited does not support that (and they could've just as easily wrote "list of companies". what then?). And "vetting of notability" is not done solely through article creation. This project has literally millions of comments, facts & figures that aren't articles, they're just sections of prose supported by sources. That's what makes them notable and worthy of inclusion. The notability of this entry is established by the four refs attached to it. And insisting that I create a stub for it or what... you won't allow to be listed? That's ridiculous. This project is filled with red links, are you going to go around demanding that people create stubs for them or you'll remove them? You want an article for Verrimus? You create it. Or don't. Either way, I don't care, I just know that you have no basis, supported by any policy or guideline you've cited, for removing that entry. It needs to be restored. - ^theWOLFchild 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Talking is reserved for those who listen, and are willing to compromise. Restoring per community standards. Scr★pIron^IV 10:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV - Well, I think it's clear that I "listened", because I "heard" the guideline that you cited and even posted it to demonstrate that it does not support removal. I asked you to respond to that as well as my other questions and points, but apparently you aren't willing to "listen" or discuss or be in anyway reasonable about this. The company's notability is established by the multiple attached reliable sources. I "compromised" when I went and searched for those sources to support the entry after the first time you deleted it (unless you want to challenge them at RSN). Strangely though, you were willing to keep the addition if instead of a redlink, it linked to a different article. So inclusion and notability aren't really an issue, it just seems that your against the entry being redlinked. WP:REDLINK states;

In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic.

It been established that this company is notable to sustain it's own article, in fact you already called for a stub to be created as one of your conditions for keeping the entry. So there is no need to link to another article section.

So to sum up; I listened, you haven't. I've tried discussing, you won't. I've compromised, you just keep deleting sourced content. The two relevant guidelines here both support inclusion, you haven't cited any policy or guideline to support removal. The list itself supports inclusion, I still have no idea what it is about that list that you think indicates removal. I'm just doing what we're all supposed to be doing here; build articles by adding sourced content and encouraging further article creation. You are... what? Other than being stubborn for no apparent justifiable reason. Please provide actual P&G support for removal, or just leave it be. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 12:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Added 'FYI'; the list heading was changed from "Known..." to "Notable..." seemingly at random by the decision of a single editor. As you can see here on the talk page, there was no consensus for this change, there wasn't even a discussion. Yet this seems to be the extremely tenuous reason you're relying on to repeatedly remove this content. I have changed the list heading to the standard and project wide accepted "List of...". There is no reason to have "Notable" in the header, as policy already makes it clear that unsupported/wp:or is not permitted. There is additional suppressed instructions as well. There is simply no reason to remove this sourced content. - ^theWOLFchild 15:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment – ScrapIronIV, as an uninvolved observer, I'm not seeing enough justification here to remove entries such as Verrimus when an adequate number of inline citations have been provided. The sources seem to satisfy the requirements mentioned at both WP:LISTCOMPANY and WP:LSC. Keep in mind that content within an article or list does not have to pass WP:N. It is only subjected to WP:DUE and WP:V in terms of policy. Whether or not the item should be linked (which results in a red link), is an entirely different debate that probably isn't worth the time for either side to argue over. That amount of time would be better spent on actually creating the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is excactly what I had encouraged previously; I had even gone so far as to attempt to add a link earlier, to an article with a section on Verrimus done here. I would have been satisified to leave it there. Every edit I have tried to make to this article, every attempt to compromise, has been met with WP:IDHT reversions. So, it should be restored to status quo ante while it is being discussed. There was a consensus for over two years for the notability threshold. I am more than happy to discuss with those who listen. For articles with potentially large, inclusive, and promotional lists, applying a WP:NLIST standard is not unreasonable. Every PI and their third cousin is going to try to get listed, as is already starting to happen. Scr★pIron^IV 21:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A comment from above caught my attention: "If you are defining something as notable, it must have an article." It sounded like you were trying to invoke WP:N unnecessarily. WP:NLIST refers to WP:LSC, which only requires that content have a reasonable number of inline citations in order to satisfy WP:V. Is there any part of that assessment you don't agree with? If not, then the least that can be done at this point is to include the cited entries and discuss the inclusion of red links separately (and it seems you and I agree that such a discussion would be a massive waste of time). --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)