Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

The Intercept
Actually, The Intercept is probably just fine as a reliable source, but the wording I reverted is completely ridiculous. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Needs a tag for disputed neutrality
Here we have a wonderfully neutral article which spends something like half its content attempting to smear the credibility of people who have spent large portions of their lives analysing data in a professional capacity. Naturally it is SHOCKING to find many of the partisan accounts typical of other political articles here on the talk page. Yet another excellent reminder of why Wikipedia should stay the hell away from reporting current events.129.72.91.170 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

raymcgovern.com Ray McGovern official site
Added to the page:


 * Ray McGovern official site

Blocked:
 * www globalresearch ca/author/veteran-intelligence-professionals-for-sanity Archive Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Archive.

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ray McGovern, co-founder, official site. Added to the page.  Ironcurtain2 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop adding that link. This is not his article, so it doesn't belong here, only on his article. McAfee also blocks it as a possibly dangerous website. It also likely violates WP:ELNO. There is no justifiable reason to use it here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I respect your edits and many additions to the article, respect my one link. I do not want to get in a prolonged edit war. I do not want to get in an acronym war either.  I think you have enough edit wars on your plate already, Valjean. I really do not know how to deal effectively with edit warriors such as you, who will liberally delete views that do not support their own POV.  Ironcurtain2 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just discovered these comments after discovering your deletion of all that I and others had done. That's an odd way to show your "respect for my edits and additions". Don't confuse my personal POV (you also have one, so don't even mention it) with what RS say and what our manual of style says. The article has been out of balance for some time, and my edits were required by our WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:LEAD rules.
 * If you have a question about some particular wording and can't figure out how it's backed by RS, or why it was made, then ask about it here and we can figure out what to do about it.
 * That external link to McGovern belongs ONLY on his article, and it's there. Those are the rules here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on User_talk:Philomathes2357:
 * sigh, @User:Valjean starting yet another edit war on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, this is my surprised face. :-| I am busy. Will address this later. Thank you for your moral consistency User:Valjean. ;-o
 * Ironcurtain2 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ?? You have been instructed above how to deal with content you don't understand. Instead of edit warring, just ask me about it, and do it in a new thread, using exact quotes. We can collaborate. I'll gladly explain what RS say about the content or what rules were followed. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Added current members
Members as of January 25, 2024:

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)