Template talk:National intelligence agencies

Misc

Most of countries have more than one intelligence agencies. What kind of agency this template aims for? External or internal or just the biggest? For what criteria will an agency be put in this template? This tem is too ambiguous. @pple 08:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SIS vs MI6

In order to avoid continuing our revert battle @pple, I suggest we thrash the differences out here. I do not believe that it's correct to use the term MI6 when referring to the Secret Intelligence Service. Unlike the Security Service, which was officially designated MI5 for a period and which actually uses "MI5" to refer to itself (see their FAQ page), the SIS was never officially designated "MI6" and it refuses to refer to itself officially by that term. Indeed, the SIS website has a fairly extensive explanation on this. Now while MI6 may be a popular way to refer to the SIS, thanks to things like the Bond franchise, it is not official and thus should not be used in an encyclopedia in place of the correct name. — Impi 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

According to your reasoning, only official name has the rights to appear on wikipedia, so you are barking up the wrong tree. MI5 is not an official name, it's just an interchangeable name for Security Service. The Security Service uses MI5 to refer itself doesn't lead to the fact that MI5 must, or will become the official name. MI5 is formerly MO5 and then renamed to Defence Security Service and finally became Security Service. MI5 may be an official name for a period (1916-1929) but not now. If we just strictly use official name and official name only, MI5 can't be used for title now. The same case is applied to MI6. According to the official website, "MI6' has become an almost interchangeable title for SIS" but "fell into official disuse years ago", like MI5. However, my argument is not based on whether the name is official, but purport that the name which is more common in use and more easily recognized by general community can be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows to use common names for articles, so no way shouldn't be applied to template as well. MI6 is a more popular name and is still widely used by writers and journalists. Thus it's entirely eligible as a reference to Secret Intelligence Service. @pple 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so, rather the policy on Wikipedia is for the most popular name to be used only when the official name is seldom used and not commonly known. An example is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which is referred to as North Korea because it is by this name that it's almost universally known. I understand your reasoning that the same applies to MI6/SIS, but I'm skeptical. Whereas the Security Service (as I said previously) explicitly encourages the use of MI5 as its acronym (likely because using SS may be controversial), the SIS does seem to actively discourage the use of MI6. Furthermore, increasing numbers of journalists are beginning to refer to it as SIS, while security analysts almost exclusively do so already. I do admit though that MI6 is still quite popular, so I'm willing to leave the table as is for the time-being. Perhaps in a few months, if more journalists begin writing SIS rather than MI6, we can revisit it and insert the correct name. — Impi 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You should notify me of your reply. However, I'm tired of continually reverting now and I accept whatever names. But beware, MI6 is still very popular, as I see Tenet still used it normally in his recent memoir. :) Just a name! @pple 16:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Usability issues

This template needs to be reformatted. Currently it uses flags and acronyms, which makes it difficult to find a country's intelligence agency if you don't happen to recognize the flag or the acronym of the agency. I am aware that the country name appears as a mouseover tooltip when hovering the mouse pointer over the flag, but again, it's frustrating to have to mouse over every flag until you find the country you want. Furthermore, a number of the acronyms used in the template do not actually appear to be in common use (i.e., the agency is actually commonly referred to by its full name, or by its native-language acronym instead of the English one).

I suggest the list be changed to a format such as this:

Canada (CSIS) • Switzerland (SRS/SND) • United States (CIA)

—Psychonaut (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious from the histories that one plus one in this case equals one. Regardless, "I disagree" is not a persuasive argument for generating a consensus. Psychonaut's arguments from February persuaded the other editor in August. Those two plus an absence of opposition looks a lot like consensus to me. I also support Psychonaut's argument; the version with the names has a much more encyclopedic appearance than the the version with the icon as well as being more useful for the user. The flags appear to be more decorative than informative and useful. Using icons here goes aagainst several of the "inappropriate use" categories in MOS:ICON: "Clarity", "Encyclopedic use", "Do not use too many icons" as well as "Accompany flags with country names" which is specific to flags. Celestra (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote for both flags with country names. Well I think countries flags are important and second also we do need names of the country too. 99.224.114.143 (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert again to flags-only. Please do not implement names+flags until we reach a new consensus.

I think the names+flags idea still runs into "Do not use too many icons" and the flags add little value to a template list of intelligence agencies by country; they are just decoration. Tell you what, instead of you and I being the only ones discussing this, let's get some more opinions. Celestra (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, please do not revert again to flags-only without reaching a new consensus. (This was done by an anonymous IP in March.) I have converted the template back to the version which uses country names. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote for flags. Carachi (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seem like consensus above was to use names, but if someone wants to change this, there only way is an official RfC. If one was made and I missed it, I apologized. My opinion is that flags are absolutely un-navigable, which goes against the purpose of navigation templates. --Muhandes (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't decide things by vote. Please explain why flags are preferable to country names, keeping in mind that the purpose of this template is to help users find information. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer both flags and names. As flags were always their before so I go flags with now. If you want to also add the names with flags more power to you. Carachi (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop doing this. The best formatting of this template is not determined by your personal preferences, nor by what was "always there before". (In any event, you're wrong about the latter; the template originally had no flags. Flags were a later addition.) The most appropriate formatting of this template is the one which presents all the necessary information in a manner which makes it easiest to find. For reasons already given on this talk page, flags actually hinder the usability of this template.

Besides uncooperatively and persistently changing this template contrary to consensus and to the detriment of usability, your reversions are actually removing intermediate content improvements and corrections to the list. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Should this template include flags for each country?

There are three possibilities for identifying the country in this template of intelligence agencies. Flags-only runs afoul of MOS:ICON#Accompany flags with country names and is a non-starter. The other editor would like both the name and the icon and I think that goes against MOS:ICON#Encyclopedic purpose and MOS:ICON#Too many icons. Please indicate whether you prefer name-only or name+flag and why. Thanks Celestra (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(RFC Comment) I dont see any reason to change from name only, this is just used for navigation and the use of flags would be just decoration. The use of icons in a nav box just gives a level of doubt as not all are self evident. The nav box is to take you to related articles it just needs to be clear and the name only suits that purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexico's CISEN

I delete CISEN from military intelligence section because the main purpose of that agency is offering civil intelligence in tackling national security threats, especially those related to organized crime. Betoqa (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed non-national US agencies

Someone added US agencies that are not national-level. Since this template links to national agencies, in the US these agencies are CIA, NSA, NGA, NRO, and at the military/defense level, DIA. Therefore, other US agencies should not be included. Further, NRO should not be listed as a SIGINT provider as it simply builds and maintains satellites that provide SIGINT, GEOINT, and MASINT to NSA, NGA, and DIA respectively. 68.34.82.255 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

These categories don't make much sense?

Currently the template is divided into agencies of various categories, but it's not clear what the criteria are or why that grouping really makes sense. Foreign-vs-domestic is sensible since those are almost always different agencies and operate under different laws, but foreign/military/signals intelligence doesn't make much sense. Many countries have foreign HUMINT and SIGINT in the same agencies, as well as military and civilian agencies, so they're listed multiple times. Distinguishing 'foreign' from 'signals' seems quite misleading when most foreign intelligence in most countries is, as a rule, from SIGINT sources. Then there are things like German MAD being listed as 'military' even though they don't do military intelligence as such, they're a military agency that does domestic counterintelligence. Swedish FRA (military agency doing foreign SIGINT on military and civilian matters) is listed as Signals but not Foreign or Military, while Danish FE (military agency doing foreign HUMINT and SIGINT, military and civilian matters) is listed as Foreign and Military but not Signals. Japanese DIH is listed as a Signals agency but not a military one, even though it is both. It says the Netherlands has two SIGINT agencies NSO and JSCU, but the former doesn't exist anymore and the latter is a collaboration between the AIVD and MIVD which are listed elsewhere, and not an agency in its own right.

Anyway, bottom line is that these categories conflate the method of intelligence gathering (HUMINT/SIGINT) with its target (foreign/domestic/military) and in the case of military, a target with who the agency belongs to organizationally (as with MAD). There's no real logic to it. IMO those three categories should simply be merged into 'foreign intelligence'. Most countries don't have more than 2 or 3 agencies in those categories anyway and as said, they frequently overlap. As it is now, there's both redundancy with the same agencies listed multiple times, but also missing entries since others aren't but should be. It's unclear who is or should be listed where. 91.152.169.54 (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2023

Please undo this edit. Finnish Defence Intelligence Agency is responsible for the signals intelligence in Finland not Finnish Security and Intelligence Service. See Finnish Defence Intelligence Agency#Signals intelligence. 85.76.13.79 (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

Add to the "Signal Intelligence" section Morocco's SIGNINT unit (PCR; Police des communications radioélectriques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Directorate_for_Territorial_Surveillance_(Morocco)#Police_for_Radio_Communications_(PCR)) Homoprometheus (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)