Talk:National Security Archive/Archive 1

Dispute
I would disagree that the NSA is a 'left-leaning' organization. I would say it is 'indepedent'. NSA doesn't state a position on this on their home page - they only say they are a 'non-governmental, non-profit institution'. I searched for 'left-leaning National Security Archive', 'right-leaning National Security Archive', and a few other combos and permutations and found nothing. I did find plenty of links from all sorts of newspapers/websites/publication to 'independent National Security Archive'. Anecdotally, from looking at their site, and seeing a live presentation, I know they work like crazy to declassify documents in every U.S. Administration, regardless of Dem/Repub.

I would disagree that the NSA has any position on 'the Bush administration's Middle East policy'. The NSA strives for government openness, so they'll always be the scourge of current and former presidents, and will always be a powerful tool for democracy. I've seen nothing on ther website, and nothing written in articles/etc., to suggest they have any position on any government policy, ever - except for the classification of materials and things related. They've strongly advocated for government openness, but that's it, that I know of.

I didn't make changes b/c I'm scared after wrecking something last time I tried, and orig author seems to feel pretty strongly that NSA is a lefty org.

Thanks.

Shmooth 10:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * NSA has been described as "leftist" by Media Research at and other similar pages on that site.  They are also cited at  in a very liberal oriented light.  I searched for 'liberal bias "National Security Archive"' on google and got a few hits. As to the Middle East comment, the most often cited work is  (go down to the Middle East section and read the work on Saddam), but I've certainly seen worse.  I would disagree that they have an institutional position on Bush's Mid East policy, but would probably agree that it is a left leaning organization.  btw, I changed your title to a section header.  Hope you don't mind. -Vina 01:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"veiled in Secrecy"
If NSA typically relies on FOIA requests to get information, the term veiled in secrecy does not apply, and really the original wording, which was "otherwise be known" is more accurate. Does NSA affect the declassification of documents? If they do, the new wording is more appropriate. My research so far seems to reflect that the original writing is more accurate. -Vina 10:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tbeatty edits
Fund For Peace: historical ties and the chairman of hte board is a trustee.

Independant is a POV term like "liberal" or "conservative." Their are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and that is a fact. But independance from who? That is POV.

Scholarly is likewise a POV term that depends on your interpretaion of the advisory board. I would like to see how the board is chosen as that is factual information. If that it included "scholarship" than that is a hard fact. But saying the adivce is "scholarly" is a POV.

And lastly, it is not plagiarism to take a small amount of sentences from the "About" page and cite them in the article. In fact, the citation is optional but I do include it. This is considered fair use. --Tbeatty 02:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fund for Peace has been associated with the Archive in the past but so have many other organizations; it would be superflous to link them all.

Scholarly is hardly a POV term. Someone who has a PhD is a scholar. They may not be notable and their work may be controversial but they are a scholar because they are an expert in their field otherwise, according to your way of thinking, no one could be considered scholarly because the term is too subjective. The Archive does what is considered scholarly work, they get the direction for this work THUS, their "scholarly direction" from that body. Further, independent is not referred to in a political manner as you are referring to it as. Non-profit organizations are either indepedent (ie an org which does not fall under the guidance/control of an umbrella organization) or dependent (ie one which does). According to the website of NSArchive, the organization IS independent. The Archive's discussion of its own organization considers itself independent. For a quote since you seem to rely on them so heavily rather than contributing your own work: "The National Security Archive is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C." --Strothra 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Fund for Peace" was it's fiscal sponsor for most of it's life. The Chairman is on the Fund for Peace board of trustees.  There is an obvious association that is much larger than it's affiliation with any other group.  Since the organization noted it on their about page I don't see why it is controversial to have it hear.


 * "Scholarly advice" is a POV term. I don't argue that the people who are on the board are scholars.  I think that if scholarship is part of the requirements for selection, it should be noted.  Please cite it.  But claiming "Scholarly advice" attempts to characterize what advice this board is giving them.  It is inherently POV.  It would be better to list how the advisory board is selected based on the scholarship, contributions, etc.  There are lots of "scholars" throughout industry, government and academia and I daresay it wouldn't do justice to descrube all hteir advice as "scholarly".  The oil industry, for example, has plenty of PhD's advising against global warming.  It would be POV to say "the Oil Industries' scholarly advisors say there is no evidence of man-made global warming."    Instead, it would be better to say the advisors give advice and then list the qualification of the adviors rather than creating a poin-of-view that their advice is scholarly.  The same is true hear.  --Tbeatty 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that I stated "The Archive does what is considered scholarly work, they get the direction for this work THUS, their "scholarly direction" from that body." Also, among your many other spelling mistakes, you should have typed "here" and not "hear."  --Strothra 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I type as if I am speaking and learned phonetically. I catch most of that on edit.  I'm glad you were able to interpret.


 * Who considers it "scholarly work"? This is an opinion.  The opinion can be cited but establishing opinion as fact is not encyclopedic.   Encyclopedias deal with facts.


 * As for "independant", there are a number of "independant" organizations that have political view points. A lot of organizations that claim independance really have view points that are not "indpendant" at all and the term is inherently POV. You could easily change it to "The NSA describes itself as: ..." But to state it as fact is POV.--Tbeatty 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I type as if I am speaking as well but hardly make the spelling and grammar errors that you do but I can still understand you so it's not a problem. I was just letting you know that you may wish to work on that.  Okay, for now I will concede your point concerning the word "scholarly".  Your arguement concerning the word "independent" first of hall suggests that you believe that the archive has a political orientation.  Second of all, the term "independent" is not even being used in the manner in which you are implying.  You seem to believe that it means that it is independent in its political orientation.  This is not true.  Independent, as it is clearly used in the article and on the Archive's website, means that the organization is independent as an institutional body which it is.   The archive does not answer to any organization.  I think that you are showing your own political colors by implying that others are trying to make a political arguement.  I think that you are one trying to push their POV on the article.  --Strothra 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The fact that you can construe POV from the removal of adjectives tells me that the adjectives have a meaning to you.  That is by definition POV.  "Independant" can mean a lot of things but it is still POV.  Whether it's political, economic, academic, etc.  If you think it is important to reflect that the Institute considers itself "independant", put it in that voice.  I think those things are important.  It's own view as well as the view of outside organizations are important.  What is also important is that it's not reflected as Wikipedia's view.


 * And just an observation, if you think you can construe my 'political colors' by my support or opposal to an 'indepandant' organization, I would again question it's independance on it's face.  Why would opposition/support of an independant organization be colored by ones political views?


 * My suggestion is to rewrite it so that it is clear the organization's view is that it is independant. For example: "According to NSA's website they are an 'indpendant institure'" and cite the website location.  That makes it a fact and is perfectly acceptable to me.


 * As for scholarly, I would rewrite that so that the selection aspect of the board uses a scholarly criteria. Cite the selection aspect and it becomes a fact and not POV.  --Tbeatty 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with you on the scholarly part. But I stil feel that you are talking around my arguments concerning the word "independent."  I am saying that it is not meant in a political manner at all whether in this article or on the NSArchive's website.  I am saying that it means simply that no organization controls or directs NSArchive and it is an entity unto itself.  It is factual information which if you disagree with you must prove it wrong. The burden of prove lies on you. --Strothra 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Independant is a POV term whether is polital or financial or parental or any way which you want to present it. It is certainly not common factual information as I could easily say it gets it's money from various organizations that have their own agendas and POV's.  There is certainly a method of how it chooses it's board.  There is certainly a method as to how it chooses it advisors.  It certainly has a process in determining it's priorities.  Absolute "independance" is easily challenged at any of these levels.  As you pointed out, indpendant can have many connotations including political.  If nothing else, it is beholden to it's own institutional biases.  Which version do you believe Wikipedia should vouch for and why?  It seems much more encyclopedic to have the organization vouch for it's own independance in the form of an attribution.  If it is indeed fact, it needs a reference.  I don't dispute it, it just needs attribution as to who believes it is independant.  --Tbeatty 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is absurd and childish. It is an indepdenent organization and that is undeniable fact. No one is discussing how it chooses it's advisors because it's not information worthy of Wikipedia because it is very considerably non-encyclopedic material which distracts from the purposes and aims of the organization.  Once again, by bringing this up you are doing nothing but talking around the arguement.  Not all facts need references.  Many facts stand alone by themselves such as that one which is proven by pure reason.  Further, the NSArchive's website is linked in the external links section and the phrase that it is an indepdenent org is on the main page. Institutional biases have no place in Wikipedia but Wikipedia is also not the place to sort out those biases.  The term indedepdent as used in this article does not even suggest having to do anything with any biases, political orientation, or institutional leanings of any sort.--Strothra 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is the way wikipedia hsa chosen to present in NPOV. They may indeed be independant.  The may may be left-wing or right-wing.  They may dependant on the Carnegie Foundation or the Mellon Foundation.  How do you claim they are independant?  What source is there that they are independant?  I say name it and put it in the article.  I am not against saying they are independant.  I just want to know who is saying they are independant.  They should be the ones making the claim, not Wikipedia.  And it is not 'undeniable fact'.  The archive shows an immediate discussion about whether they were left0wing or not.  --Tbeatty 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again you cloud the arguement by talking around it. Independent is not referring to its political orientation.  The arguements made my Mytwocents, however, are valid and I will support them.  There is reason to believe that an organization will follow the direction of its funders and thus their "independence" is understandably grey or one could even argue that their funders fund them because they already do work in line with their own objectives.  This understanding would make its indepdendence impossible to prove or disprove.  Please note for future reference that you could cite every claim on wikipedia and the citations would take up most of wikipedia's server space.  I will concede to the removal of the term in question due to the arguments put forth by Mytwocents.  --Strothra 18:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Can you remove the neutrality tag?  Thanks! --Tbeatty 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, done. --Strothra 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A tutorial for plagiarism and copyright
First, Copyright: Works can be copyrighted. Copyrighted works can be cited under fair use. Quoting it or citing it is not a defense to copyright or else people would be able to copy books simply by saying "Joe Author said: ..." It is not a copyright violation to take less than 300 words from an article and cite it.

Second: plagiarism. Plagiarism is the tehft of an idea or an expression. IT is not illegal but also not scholarly. Repeating facts is not plagiarism. For example: if someone writes in ther About page: "The XYZ institute is funded by ABC Fund" it is not plagiarism to say "The XYZ institute is funded by ABC fund."[citation for fact]. You cannot plagiarize facts. See Plagiarism.

For factual material it is adequate to simply cite the cource for the fact. --Tbeatty 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is taking issue with your use of facts. It is your use of entire sentences word for word that is the problem. Gamaliel 06:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a problem if it is a) a fact and b) sourced to the origin of the fact. Facts do not need to be quoted.  E=mc^2 is a fact and needs attribution to Albert Einstein but it does not not need to be quoted.  Footnoted sources are adequate for factual references.  You need to refresh your copyright and plagiarism training.--Tbeatty 18:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You just aren't listening. The issue is not with your use of facts. It is with you copying word for word exactly the sentence which conveys these facts.

Your contribution: "The National Security Archive was founded in 1985 by a group of journalists and scholars who had obtained documentation from the U.S. government under the Freedom of Information Act and sought a centralized repository for these materials." 

The NSA homepage: "The National Security Archive was founded in 1985 by a group of journalists and scholars who had obtained documentation from the U.S. government under the Freedom of Information Act and sought a centralized repository for these materials." 

You could have easily conveyed these same facts in your own words. To not do so and to not identify these words as non-original is plagiarism. Gamaliel 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oooh, now you have come up with a form of "self-plagiarism" since you have copied your own works to two pages (yes, self-plagiarism is real and this is a textbook example as you didn't cite that you used this work on a different page).


 * But as I said on your talk page. You are simply mistaken.  Word-for-word, attributed excerpts of fact are not plagiarism.  Word-for-word is more closely tied to copyright, but we have already shown how htis is fair use and not a copyright (citation is irrelevant to copyright).  Please review what plagiarism is before making an accusation.  To be plagiarism it must satisfy two requirements 1) it must be thought or expression and 2) it must be passed off as orginal thought.  Since this was 1) fact and 2) cited it cannot possibly be considered plagiarism.  Rewording of an expression (which is what you appear to advocate) is a form of plagiarism as it is trying to express the idea of someone else without it appearing as their expression.  In that case, a word for word, attributed source is a more intellectually honest form.  --Tbeatty 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you prefer to use an exact quote instead of rewording material, then just identify it as such by using quote marks. This is more intellectually honest than inadvertantly passing it off as original material. Gamaliel 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay a little simpler. Plagiarism is about ideas, not words.  It is not for factual content.  There is nothing "original" to quote.  There is no "quote". It is incorrect to use quotes for factual content as it implies an original idea or concept.  Citations are adequate for that.  Again, I point you to your album play lists.  The titles and order are facts and need no quote marks.  Citations are adequate.


 * Now if I had quoted pieces about their beliefs or goals, that is an expression and would need a quote to prevent plagiarism. Even rewording does not change the obligation since plagiarism is stealing ideas and viewpoints, not words.   You are confusing the copyright concept of word-for-word with the plagiarism concept of stealing ideas.  And you are simply incorrectly applying both standards.--Tbeatty 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tbeatty, this is not the forum to debate this. Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia policy.  If you wish to debate this then please debate this in the discussion section of that policy.  If you continue, I will request administrator arbitration in this matter. --Strothra 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not violate Wikipedia policy so there is no debate. --Tbeatty 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have already done that with the limited amount of encyclopedic material which was included in tbeatty's edit. Also Tbeatty, you are seriously close to violating Wikipedia policies on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Strothra 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am? I am not aware of any personal attacks nor am I being uncivil. I believe you and Gamaliel are mistaken about interpretations of plagiarism (which is a serious accusation, but not Wikipedia policy) and copyright violation (which is a Wikipedia policy).  I have not attacked anyone.  I have tried to clarify, for your edification, what is a copyright violation and what is plagiarism so you don't mistakenly make the accusation again. --Tbeatty 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Where I think Strothra's edits can go - copy of neutral version from Mytwocents
The National Security Archive was founded in 1985. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit research and archival institution located within The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. ''' From NSA's website it is an "indpendant " [cite here]. ''' It archives and publishes declassified U.S. government files concerning selected topics of American foreign policy. The Archive collects and analyzes the documents of many various government institutions obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. The Archive then selects documents to be published in the form of manuscripts and microfiche as well as made available through their website.

The Archive operates under an advisory board which is overseen by a board of directors. ''' The board of directors are chosen according to [cite here]. ''' The Archive's research was awarded in late 2005 by winning an Emmy Award for its work on the documentary, "Declassified: Nixon in China." More recently, the Archive uncovered a secret reclassification program operating since 1999. This program was underway to reclassify documents related to American foreign policy during the 1940's and 1950's, at the National Archives and Records Administration. The materials in question had all been unclassified during the Clinton administration.

From 1985 until 1998, the Fund for Peace, Inc. was the archive's fiscal sponsor. Among the Archive's more prominent institutional supporters today, are the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Freedom Forum, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Congressional Quarterly, and Cox Enterprises. The Archive recieves funding from these, and other, organizations via their donations to the National Security Archive Fund, established in order to administer the Archive's finances.

Strothra mentioned that he works with the organization so if he can find sources to make the claims about how the board is chosen, that would be great but they should be in Wikipedia's voice.--Tbeatty 03:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not work with the organization or for it. I mentioned in another user's talk page that I have been involved with it and that is how I gained knowledge concerning it. I am not currently, however, and I do not always agree with it.  Please do not talk around me and do not stalk the comments I make on other users' talk pages.--Strothra 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking around you. It is clearer to write in third person so that other readers know who I am talking about.  Especially in a new section that isn't a reply.  As for your 'stalking' comment, you inserted your information in the middle of a discussion I was a part of.  My point in this is that with your knowledge you could find sources that might be able to corroborate the scholarly nature of the board.  Please WP:AGF.


 * This little note was left for me on my talk page:
 * Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The topic is currently being discussed and was in the process of being discussed when you removed the information. Your process of sidestepping discussion and going ahead with the delete is vandalism.
 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mytwocents"


 * Sandbox....vandalism.... you cannot be serious.
 * Here is the change I made earlier:   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Security_Archive&diff=46820991&oldid=46819406


 * With this note; cleaned up text, removed some POV language.
 * If a few words might be POV and the article stands without them, then remove them. No big production number, no histrionics, no need for arbitration, just do it.  End of story.


 * This is a good article, but the facts are laid out now, on the page. I think we can put it to bed, and move on to other articles.


 * Mytwocents 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I was serious because you ignored legitimate discussion over information which I have proven as factual. If you have counter proof which you seem not to have then you are in error.  You sidestepped legitimate discussion on the article and thus I warned you for vandalism--Strothra 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strothra, you assume bad faith, the issue is not proof, it's NPOV. We determine that by consensus. We can also be bold and make edits without fear. Accusing me of vandalism is just plain wrong. Any editor, can make an NPOV at any time. That's what I did.
 * Mytwocents 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do ask that you discuss edits which are being hotly debated as the fact that the discussion is integral to the entire Wiki project. Rather than engaging in the democratic process of Wikipedia and joining in the attempt to build a concensus you chose to ignore the debate and go about your own way.  Not only is this rude, it is contrary to Wikipedia.  I will, however, assume good faith in your edits and strike the warning.  Do not lecture me in consensus when you refuse to engage in the dicussion which leads to it.  That just doesn't make sense. Further, I am highly suspicious of whether or not you and Tbeatty are sockpuppets.  --Strothra 04:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my point is, if a couple of adjectives are a bone of contention, and the article can survive without them, then take them out, for the sake of NPOV. I think that will be the end result on this page. I will stay on the sidelines for awhile, and let this play itself out.
 * Cheers to all.
 * PPS, Nope, I'm me!
 * Just Mytwocents 04:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not alter the archive box when you make edits to the discussion page.--Strothra 04:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not sock puppets. I have given you a template that would satisfy me and remove the POV terms as fact.  I have engaged in discussion more so that anyone else.  Please WP:AGF.  Nothing I have said disparages this organzation in any way.  I just want it presented neutrally and factually.  I understand your desire to include "independant" and "scholarly" but it is not encyclopedic for Wikipedia to stipulate this as fact.  I don't think it disparages the board in any way to remove scholarly.  It is not saying they are unscholarly.  Just as removing independant doesn't mean they are not independant.  It just means these are POV determinations that can reasonably disputed.  --Tbeatty 05:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am, of course, aware of that and agreed to the removal of the term scholarly. After the previous comments of Mytwocents I am more satisfied that you are not sock puppets.  Your timing in joining the article was suspicious as was the fact that you would argue a point and he would just make the edit.  I have never accused you of disparaging the organization.  I feel that you, however, see POV when POV does not exist and are trying to delete a word ("indepdenent") which describes the structure of the organization and is important to describing its inter-organizational operation and that disputing the POV nature of the term is unreasonable.  --Strothra 12:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The very first page described them as left-wing. This was changed later, by another editor, to no adjective at all, for NPOV. This group is a liberal orginisation, funded by a who's who of left-wing supporters. It's not independant of the money supply.  The Archive is not going to bite the hand that feeds it, by digging up a lot of dirt on the Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations. The bulk of it's focus is on  the Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Bush eras.


 * So, no adjective at all is the best NPOV solution. It doesn't slant the page left or right. It just leaves a simple description of the Archives history, what they do, and who funds them. This leaves the reader to decide the political bent.
 * Mytwocents


 * I wouldn't go so far as to call it out-right liberal although it is left-leaning in its approach to the interpretation of certain documents it's general push for openness is a noble cause and in line with the system of checks and balances which sometimes does not exist in foreign policy making.  I think that the focus of the article from this point on should be less about the structure of the organization, its supporters, etc. and on its mission of seeking government openess.  For this reason I will agree to the no adjective arguement.--Strothra 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)