Talk:Intelligence analysis

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
This is not and does not even resemble an encyclopedia article, at time of writing. It more closely resembles a job orientation. Barely any attempt has been made here. 81.174.169.32 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can do something about it. GBFEE (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If it were in my wheelhouse I would, but in this case I'm deterred by my ignorance of the subject matter. If I knew much about intelligence analysis I wouldn't be looking it up on Wikipedia! I would need to rewrite large parts of the article and I'm simply not qualified, sorry. 81.174.169.32 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet so many people edit Wikipedia articles to fix grammar, the structure of sentences, understanding of sentences or paragraphs, etc. rather than add encyclopedic content to the articles about the topics. Almost all of them aren't experts on the topic. If you think most Wikipedia editors are experts on what they choose to edit, you're mistaken. Sorry. Now, should they have a level of competence that at least leads to them improving the page? Wikipedians generally think so. You seem competent enough to at least copyedit parts of the page. If you think you're "simply not qualified" to do even that or you don't want to do it, that's okay. Your post here might help someone else to improve the page the way you would like to see it improved. But many people who come across this page certainly already know it needs a lot of help. GBFEE (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of "secret"
The use of the term "secret" in both he articles short description and introductory paragraph is unnecessary and excludes the analysis of open source intelligence (OSINT). Soliciting ideas or edits more representative of the actual concept. RightQuark (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Feel free to improve. GBFEE (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)