Template talk:Mass surveillance by location

US National Reconnaissance Office logo
This logo carries a slogan from a US mission. As such, it is propaganda, and it is thus contrary to NPOV. ""NROL-39 is represented by the octopus, a versatile, adaptable, and highly intelligent creature. Emblematically, enemies of the United States can be reached no matter where they choose to hide. 'Nothing is beyond our reach' defines this mission and the value it brings to our nation and the warfighters it supports, who serve valiantly all over the globe, protecting our nation.""

- NRO spokesman

If that isn't propaganda and POV, what is?

Even apart from this, it is specific to US surveillance, and has nothing to do with illustrating the concept in general, or in a way relevant to the non-US topics in the series. It is systemic bias, and so to be avoided.

On both counts, it is inappropriate, and should not be re-added. Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if it is propoganda, and I'm not saying it is, it is relevant to the subject. Thus neutral in scope.  We use the Swastika as it pertains to Nazi topics, and no one has a problem with that.  This is a non issue.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * US surveillance is not relevant to Mass surveillance in China, East Germany, India, North Korea or the United Kingdom: ie 83% articles covered by the template.
 * You seem to be unaware of the distinction between propaganda and an image. It is text that is propaganda.
 * You should not have continued to edit war after the matter had been referred to talk. NPOV is a non negotiable.  Kevin McE (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The mission patch does not contain the text, nor even if it did does it matter. You are in the minority on this matter.  Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense. The slogan is clearly part of the patch.  I can only conclude that you have either failed to look at the image you repeatedly post, or do not understand the nature of slogans.  If you consider that the importance of NPOV policy is nonsense, then you should probably reconsider your position as an editor.  I would be happy to follow the steps recommended at wp:dr, but your failure thus far to offer constructive edit notes or make meaningful comment here does not make me hopeful. I would ask you to respect the NPOV policy, and leave the template without the contentious content until such controversy is resolved. Kevin McE (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Context matters. The patch is relevant to the subject at hand.  Why don't we ask for a third opinion?  Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With no argument to support that contention, I can neither be persuaded towards agreement with it, nor hold respect for your thinking on the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because you aren't listening, doesn't mean an argument hasn't been made. The image is germane to the subject matter, so therefore by definition NEUTRAL to the subject matter.  YOU asked if I wanted to broach dispute resolution, and I suggested a third opinion.  Why don't we see what others say and live with the results? Unless you are reneging on DR...Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have made no attempt to explain relevance to any non US entry in the template. You give a reasonable explanation as to why the page on surveillance in East Germany (ceased to exist in 1990) should carry the slogan of a US satellite launched in 2013, and I will happily concede the point.  You simply declared that the patch is relevant with no supporting statement. I cannot understand how a presumably intelligent person can hold that slogan to be neutral, even if it were relevant to all the pages on which the template appears: you have done nothing to lead me (or anyone offering a third opinion) to such an understanding.
 * WP:3O does not yet seem appropriate: the preamble states, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." Your lack of any supporting argument for your opinion makes it impossible to conclude that this criterion has been fulfilled. Of course, if you think that you have presented all the reasons that you have for considering it both relevant and neutral, then go ahead and raise it at WP:3O. Kevin McE (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comprehension of neutrality is lacking context. So the only other apparent reason in your stance is you dislike the US, governments or the US government. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You know nothing of what I like. Please don't make unwarranted assumptions about other editors.
 * If you believe the patch is relevant to the template, then respond to the challenge I make above re the application of the image to the page on surveillance in East Germany.
 * If you believe that the image is NPOV, explain why you would assume that my rejection of the image reflects dislike of a country or government, and why you consider the words of the NRO spokesman quoted above about the meaning of the image and slogan to be irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As you have failed to address that the logo, even if stipulated to be propaganda (which a mission patch is anything but) is not relevant to the topic, the only reasonable assumption is that there is another problem, which leads to your initial edit summaries, of which I'll let you review on your own dime. As far as East Germany goes, one could make a valid argument that entity never performed M.S., but let's stipulate that they did.  So what?  The image conveys the meaning well enough on its own that it universally applicable.  Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way, so once again I suggest you ask for a 3O.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The image you wish to include is not a generalised image to represent mass surveillance. It is the emblem of a particular launch (and therefore irrelevant to the surveillance of any country not targeted by that satellite), which carries a slogan designed to promote the purposes of that particular launch and the organisation behind it.  A slogan designed to promote the purposes of an organisation is pretty much the definition of propaganda.  But as you evidently feel that you have presented all the reasons for inclusion of the disputed image, I'll go directly to WP:3O. Kevin McE (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)