User talk:Hcberkowitz/Archive 1

Fisheries management
Hi,

I see that in Fisheries management you removed the metric conversion. Would you please permit a metric conversion so that the article is accessible to metric readers? Thanks. Lightmouse 19:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I explained, I routinely metricate, except when dealing with legal or traditional language. In the specific case, the language of a treaty states 200 nautical miles, and does not give a metric equivalent. Since the treaty was promulgated under the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, certainly many involved in its preparation, including the politicians as well as the scientists, would be metric-literate. As a traditional example, the Olympics include a 100-meter dash, and people seem to get along reasonably without a parenthetical (109 meter). An English ship-of-the-line in the Napoleonic period was said to be armed with 24- or 32-pounders, and, again, that is a historical accuracy at a time metrication did not exist. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your User Page
I usually never get involved with people's user pages, because I don't have time. However, you have a lot of good information about yourself on your page, but it is a mess (sorry, not attacking you, just an observation). I spent some time figuring out how to format pages (mostly by stealing code from other pages, which is allowed). You might want to cut and paste mine, then work from there. Again, just a suggestion. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your report to AIV
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. -- slakr \ talk / 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MCOTW
JFW | T@lk  12:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Diabetes was chosen after a vote at WP:MCOTW. It is a vital topic that should really be featured article level. Obviously, the spin-off articles will need some attention (e.g. diabetes mellitus type 1, diabetes mellitus type 2). JFW | T@lk  15:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fishing
''Fishing‎; 02:27. . (-105) . . Hcberkowitz (Talk | contribs) (Removed speciesist tag until properly sourced text, supporting this position, is added to the article. Categories are not a place to express POV.)''
 * Not a POV: from Speciesism: "Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership".  You cannot tell me that catching fish for food, to eat, or otherwise is not assigning a lower value to fish on the basis of their species membership.  What you need to do, is to compare what would happen if a human did this to another human.  Please explain your position. -- Librarianofages 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you believe this to be true of fishing, then put it into the article, where it may be discussed and a consensus reached. It is your assertion that speciesism is relevant, so it is your responsibility to put the justification, not as original research or your opinion, but with sources as Wikipedia requires. There is nothing for me to explain about a position that I have not taken, other than it is not, as I understand, within the spirit of Wikipedia to put content in tags but not in the article. Editors are less likely to see the point if it is only a tag. If it is controversial, that controversy belongs on the talk page for the article. I shall post a variant to the talk page of the article.

SIGINT
Nice work expanding the article! Big improvement. Binksternet 02:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about SIGINT = Current & a separate History of Sigint Perhaps Sigint in WWI & Sigint in WWII out separately, as they can then link sideways into other WWI & WWII articles. But that still leaves any Sigint before WWI (?) & Sigint Interwar & Sigint After WWII to put somewhere, as well as breaking up the development thread! So History of Sigint?? (I think the comments belong here on the Talk part!) Hugo999 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a good idea. Perhaps I should move all this to the SIGINT talk page.


 * I wonder if there might be a main article on the principles and definitions, and then split out some of the history. You are quite correct that could break up the flow, and there is a question about the scope of historical articles. Arbitrarily, I started discussing things as of World War I, but there certainly were things in the 19th century directed at telegraphs, and encryption & steganography seemingly as old as writing. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving National technical means of verification
About your move request for National technical means of verification&mdash;you can certainly move the page yourself, if you wish! Requested moves is generally a good process to go through if the target page already exists, or if the change could possibly be controversial. These do not appear to be the case here, so feel free to submit the form at Special:Movepage/National technical means of verification and effect the page move. Great job with the article so far. Cheers, Grace notes T § 04:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MASINT-XM93-Fuchs-NBCrecon.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:MASINT-XM93-Fuchs-NBCrecon.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look
I noticed that you have recently been active in computer related articles and I have recently updated the Demilitarized_zone_%28computing%29 articles. Could you tkae a look at it and make sure it is adequate for wikipedia. I'm fairly new with this. Thanks. Jasonlfunk 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. How much of that do you think is in the scope of the article? It seems to me to be a little advanced for the article itself. I could add some general statement about how these are basic architectures and they can be expanded in a large number of ways. It seems like if I were to include some, I would have to include all of them. I guess I'm not familiar enough with the scope of wikipedia to know. What do you think? I'll take a look at your articles now.Jasonlfunk 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input
I have another question, although I commented back on the other talk page. I've searched through a great deal of sources after reading your comment and even went and researched what made a good source (via old college course documents lol) and I've found one that could possibly replace on of my tertiary sources for the intranet. It's still an article, but it's a much more renowned publication and I feel it would be a good source for even a college research paper. What do you think? It's been a long time since I've done any academical research haha. Salamat! (thanks) http://www.businessweek.com/1996/09/b34641.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyAngel89 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Business Week article is reasonably good in defining business requirements. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to document. Intranet vs. internet vs. extranet? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to qualify my big changes to the article. There were some definitions of intranet and extranet that were completely different than what I had known and I didn't want to just change something so dramatically with reasoning of just "that's what I know". And I don't want to leave poor resources either. But yes basically I was just wanting to establish the difference between intranet and extranet and that the Internet is a a network of a collective mesh of other networks. Do you think that it would be alright without any sources? Would citing networking textbooks be ok? Thanks so much for all your help.LadyAngel89 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well :-) you could always cite my WAN Survival Guide (Wiley, 2000), which talks extensively about the difference. Try http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2547.txt, which does define intranet and extranet, and infers the public Internet. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1930.txt would define the routing agreements that make up the public Internet A convention widely used is that capital-I Internet is the public Internet, where lower-case is any interconnected set of networks with different policies presented to one another. RFC 1930 defines an autonomous system (AS) as a set of networks and routers that pressents a common routing policy to (by inference) the public Internet. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much (again) for all of your help. I will read over the links you provided :) I seen on your userpage where you had published a few books, that is so awesome! I will have to definitely take their ISBNs and possibly get a few to add to my networking library. LadyAngel89 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:MASINT-XM93-Fuchs-NBCrecon.gif
Well, you must have missed what you were aiming for in the pulldown menu the first time because this image has never had a copyright tag. If you need to add a tag, you don't re-upload the image, you edit the image page and type it in manually. As a US Army image, the correct tag is. There are more specific tags for various groups within the army, but this one should be OK regardless.

You also have to say where you got the image from. Add a link to the web page where you found it to the image page.

The image has not actually been removed from the servers, just from the article. Once you correctly tag it, you can remove the warning tag from the image and replace it in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter tigre 15:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigint
Howard

I'd agree that SIGINT and MASINT could do with trimming, and probably cascading some daughter articles from, I'm needing to find some time to sit down and read what you've put up in some depth before I can come up with any substantive recommendations about where to take it though.

My inclination with respect to the COMINT/ ELINT relationship is that these issues may be best dealt with in an article which talks about analysis, perhaps something on the CCIRM process, rather than under the individual disciplines.

Sorry I haven't had the opportunity to offer anything more than that, work is pretty hectic at the moment.

With respect to the Milhist project I'd suggest just posting on the project talk page, there are some pretty keen reviewers there who can provide quite a lot of support, although their lack of knowledge of specific fields can make the reviews a pretty tortuous process.

Regards

ALR 21:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Input to intelligence, arms control, and related articles
Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! In my opinion, the best thing would be to transform the largest sections into new articles (for example the "Radar Masint" and "Geophysical intelligence" sections in the MASINT article can be easily made articles). Also, the SIGINT article can be splitted in articles each representing historical periods (ex. SIGINT during WWII). As some of the articles you mentioned are extremely long, you might consider even deleting text which would be boring and uninteresting to the readers. But as you seem to be an expert on the subject, you should decide what's in and what's out. Regarding graphics and visuals, any images representing technology mentioned in the text would be welcome.


 * You might also want to request help on the main talk page of the project, and you'll get the attention of the other coordinators/members. --Eurocopter tigre 21:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Public vs. Private DNS Servers
Thank you for the explanation, but maybe you missed the point (but I also missed the original meaning of public). My comment was about the revert I did. The author (spam linker ???) add a link about Public DNS servers. I reverted, thinking about a list of free DNS (that hosts zones for free), but unfortunately it was worse: it is a random selector of 3 "public" resolvers. Anyway I think the original Public DNS servers was wrong. Cate |Talk 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence Articles
Hello, Hcberkowitz! I just saw your substantial edits to counterintelligence and I can sincerely appreciate that you are working to improve the article. On the whole, it is an improvement. However, it pains to say that although it might seem common sensical that counterintelligence should include the related security fields of OPSEC, COMSEC, Physical Security, and Personnel Security, it actually does not, nor is it considered to contain those fields by counterintelligence agencies and counterintelligence personnel. As this assertion may conflict with what you know (and I note your userpage indicates you have experience yourself with intelligence research and open source intelligence, of which I do not doubt), please allow me to refer you to one of the two websites you linked and trusted as one of your sources, the government's Intelligence Board, on what counterintelligence is:

Carefully parsing through it, you'll note that although counterintelligence involves more than just catching spies, it explictly does not include personnel security, physical security, or communications security, and refers to OPSEC as an "associated activity" but not counterintelligence. Why is this? Because things like OPSEC are really everyone's job, and must be incorporated into every aspect of operations at every organization and activity, whether an intelligence activity or just some other government agency or unit, along with physical security, communications security, etc., while counterintelligence truly falls to CI personnel and agencies performing a more narrowly focused and tailored mission, as is the purpose and mission of all the CI agencies currently listed at the bottom of the article.

If you still disagree, please let me know. Rather than remove the OPSEC-thru-Personnel Security portion of the newly reworded article myself, I felt it more appropriate to leave you a note here so that you had the chance to remedy it yourself first. Obviously you put time and effort into writing those well-written new portions and I can sincerely appreciate the effort. I've been wanting to see that article get expanded for some time but it is difficult to see precisely how to do it. I do think it was a good idea to expand the "intelligence failures" section as you did to include US, UK, and USSR portions to give the reader additional examples in understanding counterintelligence in action. -- AzureCitizen 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I didn't return to Wikipedia until just after lunch today, and have carefully read what you posted in response. You began your posting with something which I think I should probably quote directly - for ease of reading I'm going to put it in italics: "Yes, the US intelligence community page uses the limited definition of counterintelligence. You'll note, however, that this definition disagrees with JCS Pub 1-02 and other doctrinal guides, both US and non-US."  I'm having some trouble seeing that; could you please refer me to some specific examples where JCS 1-02 or other doctrinal guides (either US or non-US) include OPSEC and other security practices under counterintelligence? I also noted that you later referred to the USIB definition as "new," but I'm having trouble with that as well, as it follows what I've been doctrinally taught; that OPSEC, COMSEC, INFOSEC, personnel security, physical security, etc., do not fall under CI, and are not within the direct scope of CI activities, units, or organizations. It is not that they aren't very important in their own right; it's just that they are not considered CI. Further, the USIB definition is clearly drawn from Executive Order 12333, which established back in 1981 that counterintelligence did not include personnel security, physical security, document (information) security, or COMSEC in paragraph 3.4(a). Can you please explain why you perceive this to be a "new" concept, or one that has not followed by all US Intelligence activities as directed by EO 12333 a quarter century ago?

Perhaps your primary concern or argument as to why OPSEC and other security practices should fall under counterintelligence is more of a philosophical one, that when considering CI, in the broadest possible definition, it should be concerned with countering all aspects of intelligence collection by foreign nations, and thus, since something like OPSEC or physical security or the other fields help prevent that collection, it must be a part of CI. Although I can appreciate that in the broadest sense, I see plenty of practical problems in application. I mentioned earlier that OPSEC was "everybody's job," and you disagreed. I can respect that, but from a CI perspective, we can't possibly put that task or burden on our CI personnel and agencies, who already have their hands full with the high-level CI fight. OPSEC and the other SEC disciplines must be incorporated down to the lowest level, in everything that we do, for everyone, in order to be effective. From a common office office worker at their desk in a non-intelligence activity practicing proper INFOSEC by keeping SF704 coversheets in place or initialing the SF 702 everytime they open their GSA container, to a communications worker using proper procedures in handling COMSEC materials, to even a physical security officer making sure that room keys are issued and properly accounted for, every person plays a part in helping to defend against the intelligence collection methods employed by the other side. Please take a quick look the wiki article on INFOSEC and note the poster someone put up at top right: "Security is everyone’s responsibility," ergo, OPSEC is "everybody's job." I think you mentioned that "everyone is not qualified to do objective risk assessment," and I would agree with you there, but objective risk assessments can be left to CI experts while the functional realm of OPSEC and the other security disciplines remain a task for everybody. I think you also stated that you believe not considering counterintelligence as a overall discipline, to include the SEC disciplines, means no one has responsibility for overall information and operational security. All I can say in response is that lumping the SEC disciplines in with CI still won't make one entity responsible for overall information and operational security - our CI agencies and personnel can't possibly do that job, it is up to every rank and file individual to employ the SEC disciplines and make them part and parcel of their jobs.

Returning directly to the issue on the Wikipedia entry on Counter-intelligence, I think the accepted consensus and doctrine in the US Intelligence Community is that counterintelligence is specifically contemplated to refer to CI activities which detect and neutralize the intelligence operations of foreign intelligence services (when I started in the 80s, we called them HOIS, not FIS), both in "information gathered" and "activities conducted" to prevent espionage and sabotage, but is not interpreted to include OPSEC, COMSEC, INFOSEC, etc., which are separate and defensive security practices in their own right. The former is tasked specifically to CI agencies, and the latter is a broad responsibility of all government and contractor personnel everywhere. In that regard, the Wikipedia entry on counterintelligence should really reflect the accepted consensus of the intelligence community, as opposed to what you or I might think it ought to be. After considering the issue, and only in the limited sense of what should appear under that wiki entry, are we in agreement there?

You asked if I we mutually agree that counterespionage is a proper subset of counterintelligence, being principally a CIA responsibility when foreign and FBI domestically - absolutely. CE is the crown jewel of CI, but CI activities encompass more than just CE cases.

I briefly looked at some of your current and ongoing work at SIGINT, Radiofrequency MASINT, User_talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox1-OverarchingIntelligence, and User_talk:Hcberkowitz/Analysis; it looks interesting, and you probably know considerably more than I do on those topics. I am going to make a bookmark note to come back and look at them more deeply in the near future, but will not make any edit suggestions on those pages unless I'm 1) very confident I possess the knowledge to suggest a change and 2) receive your invitation to do so. -- AzureCitizen 20:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

JCS 1-02 defines counterintelligence as "counterintelligence — Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or internationalterrorist activities. Also called CI. See also counterespionage; countersabotage; countersubversion; security; security intelligence. (JP 2-0)


 * Can I ask where inside that definition you specifically feel OPSEC and the other SEC disciplines were meant by DoD to be "included" when they defined counterintelligence in JCS 1-102? Is it "activities conducted to protect against... ...other intelligence activities?"

I was about to ask if you would feel more comfortable if "CI" were changed to "security", but that term, again, has become so broad as to mean nothing. It's not uncommon, when walking down a public sidewalk, to have some large individual bar one's way, muttering "security".


 * I'd agree that security is an extremely broad term; from my experience within the field, counterintelligence has a narrowly tailored and specific meaning in actual practice.

Note that the DoD a broad definition, including countersabotage, which is hard to imagine without physical security being a major component.


 * In my experience, physical security really isn't considered an active component of countersabotage, which has traditionally been a narrowly focused CI activity to detect, destroy, neutralize, or prevent sabotage activities through identification, penetration, and manipulation of individuals, groups, or organizations conducting or suspected of conducting sabotage activities.

Part of my being conflicted is that the USIB OPSEC definition is so broad, so vague, that it essentially says nothing to me. At the same time, I'm seeing growth of a "conceal everything in the name of OPSEC" culture, which flies in the face of decades of work on more open national security processes.


 * I can't really speak to that, but I will trust that you've observed plenty of things to lead you to that conclusion. However, if the USIB OPSEC definition is broad and vague, and you feel that OPSEC is becoming overused, wouldn't that be all the more reason why we shouldn't lump OPSEC in with CI?  Advocate for more effective OPSEC process rather than try to make it a subset of something which is already distincly defined?

My greatest concern here is that OPSEC, which once meant something specific but, to me, has been generalized to the point of meaninglessness. EO 12333 never defines it, so I don't know how to rationalize OPSEC as part, or not part, of CI.


 * Perhaps EO 12333 never really defines it because it wasn't considered to be a part of CI? Note that in 1988, the same President who signed EO 12333 issued National Security Decision Directive 298 that established a national OPSEC policy and outlined the five-step OPSEC process.

Further, this article is not about "US OPSEC" or "US CI". Conversations with British and other colleagues are difficult in that they restrict more of their definitions, but there is a strong sense of disagreement with the US definition.


 * Agreed, that the article is not about "US OPSEC" or "US CI," but the concept of counterintelligence as currently practiced by nations. However, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that the British or other nations consider CI to include items like information security, personnel security, physical security, etc.  Are you aware of nations or services which do?

I am willing to agree that EO 12333 does not start by defining these, but, under paragraph 3.4(g)(3), it leaves a wide scope for essentially anything being defined as a counterintelligence activity. In other words, 3.4(g)(3) trumps 3.4(a).


 * I took a long, careful look at this but was unable to come to the same conclusion. I think what you're trying to point out is that 3.4(g)(3) gives wide scope for other programs or agencies within the IC being designated by the President as national foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities.  But that has never happened - the President has never designated security concepts, practices, and programs like physical security, personnel security, information security, etc., as CI activities.  So, since 1981, 3.4(a) stands untrumped in its explicit definition that CI does not include personnel, physical, document, or communications security programs, and that is where we are today.

If you can give me an unambiguous definition of OPSEC, that doesn't easily fall into either the trap of either keeping information away from those with a national security need to know, or being able to conceal embarrassing but not privileged information, I will examine that.


 * I suspect I can't really give you a satisfying definition of OPSEC that you won't find potentially flawed (wink). However, despite how important the lessons of Pearl Harbor, Operation Eagle Claw, and other similar events are, they don't necessarily paint a clear picture as to why the SEC disciplines should be defined as CI activities today.

Again, my major objection is to the current usage of OPSEC, and I'm willing to negotiate almost everything else.


 * If I may make a heartfelt suggestion... why not work to improve the Wikipedia entry on Operations security instead, rather than trying to make it a part of the CI article?

Again, this is meant not to be US-specific.


 * Agreed, but can you refer us to any non-US intelligence services who consider OPSEC and the SEC disciplines to be an integral part of counterintelligence activities?

...The Wikipedia entry on counterintelligence should really reflect the accepted consensus of the intelligence community, as opposed to what you or I might think it ought'' to be. After considering the issue, and only in the limited sense of what should appear under that wiki entry, are we in agreement there?''

No. I think you are limiting your definition to the US intelligence community, in a period where security is politicized badly.


 * We should explore then what we consider the definition to be in the non-US community... then see where we can split the difference. Perhaps if the non-US community includes the SEC disciplines in CI, then we can differentiate in the Counter-intelligence article the separate practices so that distinction is apparent (and the US position can be easily sourced, as unsourced material is easily challenged).  How does that sound to you?
 * -- AzureCitizen 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

''Good morning! Picking up where we left off: "We should explore then what we consider the definition to be in the non-US community... then see where we can split the difference.  Perhaps if the non-US community includes the SEC disciplines in CI, then we can differentiate in the Counter-intelligence article the separate practices so that distinction is apparent (and the US position can be easily sourced, as unsourced material is easily challenged).  How does that sound to you?"''

I cannot, in good conscience, use US definitions of OPSEC until they start to mean something again, rather than, for example, being open-ended invitations to make Homeland Security "sensitive but unclassified" warnings outside the scope of any declassification system, outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, and outside Congressional review.

I would be willing to speak in terms of strategic deceptions as a means of what I'd call "protecting operations" rather than OPSEC. The chaotic ways in which soldiers are being told, on alternate days, that they can or cannot have blogs, and they can or cannot put things in email, have caused me to lose all confidence in the US approach to OPSEC. OPSEC, in the classical sense, is about protecting specific operations and capabilities. It has morphed to mean "hide all details about US activities". Ironically, the Soviets didn't like OPSEC; it had to be in the USA Institute rather than the GRU or KGB. I really don't think that there is a large OSINT effort in a pentagon-shaped cave in Pakistan.

Each of the books I've written on network design start with "what problem are you trying to solve?" I can't discern a clear definition of the problem OPSEC is intended to solve. It would be Original Research for me to try to define it.

If you can define some generic term, other than OPSEC, that includes CI/CE, and, perhaps at a parallel level, the other security disciplines, I could, in good conscience, write to it. Suggestions?


 * I read your reply last night just before turning in, and tried to think of some generic term that would meet this criteria, but couldn't. Perhaps there is a reason why it is so elusive - the concepts are often complicated, and the US Community has struggled with OSPEC for a long time.  I don't envy the troubles you face trying to integrate this concepts and writing on them, and I'm sorry I can't be of much help.  I am also no fan of the current administration's policy efforts in these areas, and am troubled by things like the WH-DOJ events transpiring just after 9/11 and other events which are still playing themselves out.


 * Trying to make headway on the issue of the SEC disciplines (Information Security, Personnel Security, Physical Security, Communications Security, etc.) being added into the Counter-intelligence article in a major re-write, I think we need to figure out exactly where we agree and disagree so that we can try to make some progress there, as I must admit it's actually been confusing to me in our conversations. I'll start with suggesting two statements that you can let me know where you stand with either "agreed" or "disagreed," with "disagreed" responses including (if I might ask for) a direct explanation to help me understand why you disagree.  Does that sound reasonable?  Feel free to put similar questions to me if you'd like.


 * The US intelligence community does not consider the SEC disciplines to be part of CI.


 * The non-US intelligence community (e.g., the rest of the world) may or may not consider the SEC disciplines to be a part of CI.


 * -- AzureCitizen 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Am trying to continue our conversation while getting work done in the office...
 * "The US intelligence community does not consider the SEC disciplines to be part of CI." (Agree/Disagree)
 * This is touchy. I believe that a good deal of that is security theater, with mandates from a political level, especially now, which really wasn't coordinated through the intelligence community. I'm willing to say that the EO/USIB says that, with a loophole, and the DoD definition can be read either way.


 * With regard to reading the DoD definition either way, can you elaborate on what part of the DoD definition you feel supports the contention that DoD considers the SEC disciplines to be an integral part of CI? -- AzureCitizen 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm rapidly wondering if, whether intending it or not, you are thinking of CI as primarily CE.


 * I do think counter-HUMINT is the most important component of "CI" as the U.S. approaches it, but not the only component.

In the narrowest sense, how can one prevent against Boris and Natasha if one does not put the Seeekrit Plan in the safe (i.e., physical security)? Personnel security, we hope, finds the spies before they can do much damage.


 * Agreed, it is very important to keep secret the seekrit plans. All the SEC programs are important, and play their security role...

It's hard for me to conceptualize "countering [foreign] intelligence" and then restrict myself to not covering the defenses against means of intelligence collection.


 * It seems to me that we would both agree that the SEC programs are important, we just disagree on whether or not those defenses against means of intelligence collection are doctrinally considered to be within the scope of counterintelligence as the U.S. government approaches it. Or perhaps you actually agree with that as well, you just disagree as to whether or not those defenses should be doctrinally considered to be within the scope of CI?  -- AzureCitizen 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't that much rational threat assessment, IMHO, to justify the suppression of speech...


 * I can see you'd quickly appeal to the civil libertarian in me...

Aside from any political theatrics, whether one calls the "master discipline" OPSEC or CI, does there not have to be someone with the ultimate security responsibility? ... ... They need to be in the scope of something, or there is a guarantee there will be gaps.


 * Although the SEC programs are vital and important in their role, I'm not sure that if we treat them doctrinally as separate from "CI" (in the scope of its personnel, agencies, and missions), we're really creating a gap through which the SEC concepts fall through the crack. Also, trying to tie many distinct things together in a bundle to make one entity responsible with ultimate security responsibility may introduce new weaknesses and vulnerabilities to deal with.


 * After some reflection, I decided to post questions to a discussion list I joined some time ago which has membership restricted to verified DoD CI personnel (current and former/retired) in order to get some perspectives from others on what they thought of the issue we've been discussing. Directly releasing postings or identities from that list is prohibited by the group's rules but nothing was discussed of a sensitive nature and summarizing here is acceptable.  On the balance, several felt that the security programs and practices were important and that CI personnel should be well-versed in understanding them, but few felt they should be doctrinally considered CI, or responsibility for them placed on CI activities and organizations.  One specifically pointed out that title 50 USC, EO 12333, ODNI, and DoD written policy all recognize CI and security programs as related but separate, and that this is done to prevent CI personnel from getting dragged into doing the security program jobs which had happened before decades ago and had to be straigthened out (by the time of EO 12333 in 1981 I presume).


 * I think our problem here in trying to resolve whether or not CI encompasses the ***SEC programs comes down to way we're thinking about and molding the issue in our minds. You're contending that in the broadest sense, a robust concept of CI includes the SEC concepts.  I can't say that I disagree with that.  I'm saying that doctrinally, we don't fold the SEC programs in with CI because on a practical matter, it doesn't work, and experience and written US policies reflect that.


 * Therefore, perhaps the best solution is to leave the SEC concept materials in the Wiki article on Counter-intelligence, but reform the portion which leads into OPSEC to include a few comments on the fact that the US Community does not doctrinally incorporate them into CI activities and organizations, with references to source it, and structure the article appropriately. What do you think of that approach?  -- AzureCitizen 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are converging, and let me propose a "Gordian Knot" sort of solution. What if we create an article, under the intelligence cycle, with one of the following titles:

1. Security (i.e., nothing about the kind of SEC in the title. All the "SECs" are subheadings or daughter articles)

2. Protecting the intelligence cycle (tricky. Lets us refer to CI in a narrowly defined separate article. The problem, however, is it doesn't really address protecting broader national interests, the role of the action organizations -- military, law enforcement, emergency response. Should it?)

3. Protecting the national interest (ugh. Says nothing really, but brings in everybody).


 * I think the first or second choice would be best, with a slight preference for the first, but either could work well... good ideas.

Before proceeding further, some questions. Who/what organization or discipline does threat assessment and prioritzation for all the SECs, in these very different environments? (examples omitted)


 * Good examples. I think what you're driving at is how diverse the field can be, and it's tricky sorting it all out.  It requires a lot of individual attention per organization/discipline...

If we can define a structure that indexes all the SECs, redirects CI to be HUMINT defense (with CE being active measures), and defines who is responsible for protecting the intelligence community (rather than the nation), I think we might be there.


 * This also sounds like an excellent idea, and sends treatment of the topic towards an organized structure far better than what it exists now. But I don't know if I have the time and experience to contribute heavily to the project (Which reminds me, I was going to ask you, where do you find the time to edit wiki so extensively?  Are you semi-retired?  Just curious.)  Do you have time or desire to take these ideas and begin to incorporate them, with my editing/participation where I can?  I wouldn't want us to embark on collaborating on something where I couldn't realistically carry a fair share of the weight. -- AzureCitizen 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If I have time today, I'll create an article, tentatively called "Intelligence security management". Alternate wordings much appreciated. That doesn't flow as nicely as I'd like, but it fits more with the other titles in the hierarchy: (hierarchies omitted)


 * The structure you put forth looks logical and reasonably well thought out. The name "Intelligence Security Management" is sticky (as the community has never defined it either) but it's just as good as any of the alternate wordings I could come up with:


 * Intelligence Defensive Practices?
 * Intelligence and Security Countermeasures?
 * Counterintelligence and Security?
 * Multidisciplined Intelligence Countermeasures?


 * Nothing rings perfectly quite right, does it? But it makes sense, given that the community has never clearly defined it before.  We should probably stick with Intelligence Security Management, unless you think "Counterintelligence and Security" has a lot of merit since those who might take issue with our taxonomy classification could be reassured by pointing out that it explicty contains counterintelligence activities and security practices, hence "Counterintelligence and Security."

HUMINT: take a look. I cleaned up a bit yesterday, but it's pretty skimpy...


 * It helps. I saw that yesterday when I was putting in a disambiguation page for Human Intelligence since it was previously set by someone to point at intelligence (as in the mind, human thought, etc).

Physical security exists but is more commercial. Should we work in a summary of the published SCIF construction requirements?


 * It would certainly help illustrate the kind of physical security we're talking about.


 * LOL, I got a good chuckle out of what you were saying about the need for different MASINT techniques when dealing with different species of fish; it's the intelligence mindset, no doubt.


 * I recently discovered that by my having put embedded wiki links in our text/conversations, it causes the system to create links to those pages when someone searches "what links here." Whoops!  So I will go through the text above (on your talk page and mine) to remove the bracket marks such that retroactively, we don't draw complaints from other users for having created such links and connections to main space articles from within our personal talk pages.  I've also discovered that simply using four dashes creates a divider line, so I'll substitute those instead of creating new numbered subchapters everytime we respond in chat and just have one the "latest" (see above).  I'm still learning my way around the wiki, with only about 250 or so edits so far...  -- AzureCitizen 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You might find it interesting to look at the Army Counterintelligence FM 34-60 of 1995. I can't remember if that's what I had in mind at the time I wrote about all the "SEC's" being under CI, but this version is rather explicit about defensive CI in both multithreat briefings, and in countermeasures against each of the major intelligence collection disciplines.


 * Good reference on your part to find and point out, I'd meant to dig my paper copy out and give it a look but it isn't physically located where I'm at here and I didn't think to look for it online. By defining CI Operations as "special" and "general," and then explictly including support to force protection and security programs in the latter, it makes a good argument that SEC programs really are part of CI or are closely connected with it, insofar as the field manual puts these into practice for the Army.  One thing you probably noticed is that it says that CI General Operations support the SEC programs, without actually saying that CI General Operations include the SEC programs or control them, but further down in the manual the line becomes a little more blurry.  Two references I found last week that I wanted to share with you for good current sourcing material for US CI are here and here, please take a look when you get the chance.  The second reference is the better of the two and includes an annotated defintion of CI on page 5.

You can look at my working draft of what is to be the CI article under User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox0-SIGINT Platforms (didn't make it a wikilink, and ignore the title). It's probably fair to say that current CI doctrine has evolved to being principally counter-HUMINT, but FM 34-60, for example, clearly puts OPSEC, COMSEC monitoring, personnel security, etc., under CI. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, you have been busy! Impressive.  I only gave it a quick read just now but I will return to look at it more in depth, and once again you've obviously put a lot of time and quality effort into this.  It's going to greatly advance the quality of the main space article when you replace the current entries.  If I have any suggestions, do you want me to make any proposed edits, right there on the sandbox page?  I figure you can easily revert or undo something I edit if you feel it it doesn't help or if the original text was better, and I won't take issue with it.  I didn't see anything right off the bat that I even thought should be changed, I just wanted to ask first. --AzureCitizen 15:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, sorry for the untimely reply, this is probably the only Wiki edit I'll have time for today with everything that is going on here...

Never, in the course of human events, has a US Army doctrine been "blurry"


 * Agreed! :)  LOL.  Probably has something to do with the high rate of personnel turnover across the board, which affects decision making and policy making, besides the obvious fuzzy thinking.

As a pure matter of keeping articles of manageable size, what do you think of the "overarching SEC" article referencing the 1995 definitions, and then putting the CI draft into the position of "counter-HUMINT", just as COMSEC (and other things) are counter-SIGINT and SATRAN is counter-IMINT? What that might eventually look like, hierarchically, could be: ((omitted text))


 * Seems logical and I can't disagree with your ideas. Once again, this reminds me how complicated getting a birds-eye view on all of it can be...

The problem remains that there seems to be no term, except the "Intelligence Cycle Security" I invented, that covers all "SECs" relevant to intelligence, and, I think by reasonable extension, counterterrorism.


 * Perhaps inventing a new term is really what is needed here, since nothing really exists to date to cover it. Fine by me, as I certainly haven't been able to think of anything better.  Although (as you've probably anticipated) the real problem happens when someone else comes along and challenges it on the basis that it isn't doctrinally used... well, we'll let them see what they can offer.

I published the "Intelligence Cycle Security" and "Counterintelligence" articles, thinking it was time to get wider comment... ...I am going to let the articles simmer and see if there are more comments...


 * A dramatic improvement in quality and content, I am again amazed by the time and effort involved in such a substantial re-write! I think my watchlist page noted a net increase of over 70,000 bytes in the edit.  As you said, good to see now what comments this will draw, and further refinements to follow.  I still need to make the time and sit down to carefully read the article from start to finish...  --AzureCitizen 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! I see we are both on, late in the evening... things relaxed a bit and I've been making sporadic edits over the last hour or so, including restoring the list of CI organizations, and sure enough, you caught that quick and improved it by adding several more.

There was one I have to relate, about US Army Criminal Investigation Command, that often confuses many people in its prior history and current scope. Although the initials are similar, Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and the Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) were actually separate organizations and were never connected; take a look at the Wiki entries for U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command and United States Army Counter Intelligence Corps. Furthermore, despite what it says on the Wikipedia CID article, Criminal Investigation Command does not investigate espionage. When they get a case involving a US service member and espionage, they are jurisdictionally required to immediately turn it over to Army Counterintelligence, who investigates the espionage angle. In the course of the counterspionage investigation, new potential crimes often come to light, that are misdemeanors or felonies in their own right but are not espionage (everything from drug use, to adultery, and a myriad of other offenses prosecutable under the UCMJ, even murder). When Army Counterintelligence discovers these, they are required to turn those offenses over to Criminal Investigation Command at the end of any CI Investigation that does not involve turning a suspect into a double. In this respect, a working relationship is forged from case to case between the CIC and CI special agents who work a given geographical jurisdiction, but strictly speaking, Criminal Investigation Command is not a counterintelligence agency, and espionage crimes are one of the narrow category of crimes exempted from their jurisdictional mandate.

I have read the CI article now from top to bottom, and am still amazed at what a high quality re-write you've instituted. One thing I did want to ask you about, I find that when I click on the references that are often at the end of paragraphs, the browser makes a click noise to indicate it received the command, but nothing actually happens. Might be something wrong with my copy of internet explorer, but I wanted to ask you if you'd noticed the same and if there was something going on there that isn't working right. Have you noticed this? --AzureCitizen 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One, when I learned that the NKVD and the NVKD were different incarnations of the same Soviet organization. Two, when I was working at a Navy installation, and realized I was responding to COMNAVSECGRUACTPACDET without any fuss, and knowing what it meant.


 * LOL - alphabet soup...


 * I guess once traditions get started, they die hard.

I use Firefox. I find IE sufficiently buggy that I use it only for things where there is no alternative, such as using certain Microsoft system-checking tools.


 * If I get some time, I will download Mozilla Firefox and check it out.

There really seem to be gaps in the current US conceptual model, with real areas of responsibility that SHOULD have a name, but don't. Whether these are things that fell through the cracks, such as no one updating NSDD 298 after the DNI was formed, is one possibility. While I thoroughly understand the need for protecting, I also find a tendency, in the current administration, to be constantly looking for ways to hide things that properly should get calm review. Where one document explicitly says OPSEC is about UNCLAS stuff, and another document says the threat assessments need to be classified, the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
 * I think a big part of the problem stems from the usual bureaucratic tangles of human government, and an inability to just "get it right" that stems from so many people and organizations having a hand in the mess, then throw in politics on top of it.

Some of the counter-INT things are now duplicated, which is inelegant. If you had said to me, a while ago, that counter-SIGINT was simple, I might not have agreed, except after I started thinking about counter-MASINT. Oh, I can think of countermeasures to a great many MASINT systems, but each approach is unique to a sub-technology. It's not a simple matter like finding a SIGINT receiver and doing hard or soft kill.


 * The field of countermeaures is certainly complicated and has to keep changing, evolving, adapting to technology and incorporating it. Makes one wonder if it is like this right now, what will it be like 25 years from now?


 * I saw your note on the List of CI Orgs talk page, will post a note there right now. --AzureCitizen 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry, I have been AWOL from the Wiki travelling TDY for the past week, too busy working during the days and sleeping in hotel rooms at night. Not a lot of time to do too much else, and just haven't been able to respond to your latest post. I saw what you wrote about the Intelligence Analysis article, and noted that your fellow editor had deleted out a large chunk but hadn't discussed the refinements much, and seems to have stopped editing since Monday. I restored those portions and entered an editorial summary suggesting we discuss the changes further on the Talk page if he wants to re-delete, hoping to draw more dialogue rather than summary deletions without discussion. I will admit the article is on the lengthy side - but in my opinion, not so wordy as to be inappropriate for a Wiki article on a sophisticated subject, and there are many nested articles that fit within the framework, something that you have taken the time to strategize and connect together, where no one else has bothered to do so. I think you're also on track with consolidating many of these stubby orphaned articles on things like "double agent" and others that lack the nuances necessary to round them out and tie everything up - I only regret that I usually just don't have the time to dedicate a matching editorial effort. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you were saying about seeing the edit summary "discuss on Talk page" and then your prompt posting, thinking the text had been restored by the other editor until you realized it was me after my week-long wiki hiatus. Actually, if he decides to comes back and contribute further (his last post said he'd be back the next day, then he left it where it was), hopefully he'll read your posting and be motivated to re-engage in the discussion rather than go back to deleting large portions in their entirety. I was going to post something on the talk page myself but then reconsidered that it probably wasn't necessary.

I read your Special Recon article - yet another excellent contribution - I still marvel that you find the time and energy to put so much effort into entirely new pages single handedly.

I started thinking about the hierarchy of intelligence articles again, and was thinking maybe we should create some sort of navigation reference within the articles, that helps the reader understand how it all nests together right there. One idea is some sort of navigation sidepane, but it would be difficult within that box to show how it all nests (the ones I've seen so far contain lots of links, but they are a series in which all articles are equal and on the same plane, rather than a logical hierarchy). I also have no experience in designing or creating them. The other idea I had was to simply introduce a short one-sentence phrase at the top of each article, noting that this article was party of a series and linking it to the very next article just above the article, in the hierarchy, so someone might navigate up the chain that way. Possibly leading to a main page at the very top which is really not an in-depth article but a branching tree with all the sub-articles. This would be an easier navigation aid to design and maintain. Any thoughts?

If you like the idea, perhaps you could recreate again for me (if you have the time) the entire article structure once more (using indents), and I could start trying to stitch that together using something akin to the above? --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that you already had the entire hierarchy right there on your user page - made it easy for me to slip it into ICM and begin formatting it. Saw your note on the talk page for intelligence analysis management - good idea - by posting your comments, you've helped further cllue other editors into the hierarchy involved here, which gives them a chance to examine it before changing things in a subarticle.

I am almost done with linking all the subarticles with the hierarchy comments at the top of the lead (left off at MASINT), but have to quit for now due to plans with the significant other. Will come back to it as soon as I can. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, I couldn't leave it alone and thought I'd try creating a navigation template to see how that would look in place of italicized text. To the right, you can see a possible working result for the MASINT disciplines, which in theory would replace the text at the top of the six articles (sitting just off to the top-right), and should make it self-evident to readers how to navigate up the chain of articles or within the MASINT articles. One nifty feature when I tested it was that whichever page you are on, it replaces the link for that page with bolded text for that specific article, something you can't see right now but would if you were viewing an article that had the template included.

But is this really an improvement? Which do you think is better, a template like this or the italicized text at the top of the pages? Your honest perspective appreciated, as I'm split on whether to institute this or just leave the articles alone as they are. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind, mostly because I don't have a good comparison. HUMINT might be a better comparison than SIGINT, because HUMINT has, at least, subdisciplines (SR and clandestine HUMINT for now--never mind CI and the overlaps of clandestine HUMINT operations), where the subordinate SIGINT entries are not subdisciplines. Do I make any sense? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm a bit lost there - I was only looking at adding that MASINT navigation box as a test concept for making navigation easier to the unfamiliar reader who comes to the article and sees it first thing at top right - I'm wondering if we're seeing the same thing since we have different browsers. Do you see a box on this page, nearby and to the right, with links in which you can click and navigate the MASINT articles, and/or go up the chain through collection management and intelligence cycle management?  --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on with the browsers. What I see in the top, indented paragraph are links for the subdisciplines -- nothing seems especially bolded.


 * Ahhh, I see where part of our confusion is - I didn't make any changes to any of the actual articles - I only created the template, and then inserted it on your Talk page. Are you looking directly at your talk page when you're reading this, or did you use the "diff" link to just see what had changed in the posted text?

There's another effect that I wonder might be related. Look at any of the MASINT disciplines, say "Geophysical MASINT". In each of the discipline articles, I put a list of the six disciplines. Something, whether it's Wikipedia or the browser, is smart enough to avoid a loop: even though I have all six typed in as wikilinks, the one to "Geophysical MASINT" in the Geophysical MASINT article does not show as a wikilink, but as plain text. In the "Radar MASINT", there is a wikilink to Geophysical MASINT, but not to Radar MASINT.


 * I noticed that (see comments two posts back, above), Wikipedia must somehow do it automatically, and it has done it to the template I created as well when I test-previewed it in a MASINT article (but did not "save" it there). --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks great. I have no idea what will happen with things that aren't strictly hierarchical, such as clandestine HUMINT techniques under both CI and HUMINT. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, using a navigation box on some of the other articles series might be problematic. This particular navigation template was only for the six MASINT discipline articles - I created it just to see what it might look like - but wasn't sure if I liked it, or if it was worth changing.  Hence wanting to ask if you thought the MASINT articles looked better with the italicized text at the top to guide the reader, or if this navigation box might look better at the top-right of each MASINT article. --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, who knows for sure? :)

I still can't make up my mind whether to incorporate the nav box idea. I guess I will try it on the six MASINT articles, then let it rest for 24 hours and look at it tomorrow. If we don't like it, it can easily be reverted by clicking on undo six times.

At MASINT,SIGINT, IMINT, HUMINT, OSINT, TECHINT having a box that goes up to intelligence collection management? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think that would be a good idea? --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We may be making some WikiHistory here, as I don't know of a set of articles that are tied together the way we are doing it. On the one hand, it will make things more coherent, but that may be seen as bureaucratic. Mind you, we now have little groups of tradecraft scattered in odd places, often mixed with fiction, and not presenting a coherent picture. I have a sense that this is backing into an Intelligence & Special Operations project, whether that's the intention or not. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Should we wait on it for a bit, and see if we think navigation-boxing the articles is the right way to go after weighing the above? --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw your post, took a quick peek at clandestine HUMINT operational techniques, again another impressive article that I want to read in depth! Will try to look closely at the clandestine cells portion and the differing structures. I will also add it to the hierarchy list on the ICM article sometime soon unless you get to it first.

I also realized that I may have created something redundant with the List of CI Organizations when you had actually already created the CI and Counterterror organizations page, which includes a lot of the same info. Maybe we should consolidate the former with the latter or something similar.

I still haven't decided if the navigation boxes on the MASINT subdiscipline pages (x6) were a good thing, or if it would be better to just revert them and have the italicized text format match all the other articles.

--AzureCitizen (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Latest)
When you can't sleep, you can't sleep, can you? Good that a feline is always ready to keep you company. I have a pair of ferrets myself but they usually don't want to sit in the lap, preferring to poke their noses instead into anything and everything going on around them.

I can appreciate what you were saying about lists and hierarchies, and the Wikipedia preferences that take shape, plus the subtle nuances of many intelligence topics and how they don't necessarily fit that well into these structures. Perhaps "hierarchy" was a bad choice of term for when I created the "see also" directory tree structure on the ICM page. My primary concern was that a user coming to one of the pages wouldn't be able to sense or see the structure of how these articles interrelate, and by creating a structure hierarchy that stands out at the forefront, they have a clue. Kind of catch-22, as without it the articles become very distanced, and with it, we find ourselves trying to force a structure where maybe it doesn't really fit. As you pointed out, there is also the problem of trying to classify and maintain things like organizational lists in light of all the blurry lines and changes throughout history (which you seem to have an excellent grasp on). I'll ponder it some more and try to come up with a solution for the redundancy I started, as I didn't realize you had created the CI&CT Org page before I recreated the CI Org list page.


 * There's a cartoon I've loved for many years: two multi-starred generals are holding model rockets, and one is asking "Have I got this straight? This is the one that we send up to get the one that they sent up to get the one that we sent up to get..."

LOL. :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The addition of EOB to SIGINT
Hello, following your comments, please see my response at User_talk:Comint. Regards, Comint 10:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With response to yours at User_talk:Comint:

First - thank you for an intelligent and enlightening conversation.

And to the point - i have some disagreements with you on the definitions but since its all semantics, i'm not sure one of us will convince the otherone. One thing i'm sure about is that SIGINT is basically a pasive intelligence gathering concept, hence frequency blocking for examples or any other ECM technics would not follow under COMINT nor ELINT.

As to EOB - true - it is not so simple analysis, though it is quite tactical. Although it can be performed on a national level for long term analysis', it is also a technique that is commonly used near batlefield, by brigade intelligence level, with on-line information flow and immediate decisions making by on-field analysts with direct contact to the combatie forces. So, in a way, i can't see if it's more SIGINT or more ESM, unless there is no much differences between them as long as dealing with EM waves interception. Well, to be honest, i'm not that sure where to draw the line.

about manually or automatic EOB build-up - i'm not sure i get your question. Was my explanation unclear, or the whole idea? just to make sure i'll give you the answers you're looking for.

Good day, Comint 08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, i see your point. Comint 09:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Zapped by cyberwar ... or just aimed wrong?
You left a comment on my talk page that I think was meant for a different discussion, as it's certainly a non-sequitur where it is now. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My compliments
I'm an Italian user (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki), so I apologize in advance for my unperfect English...

I'd like to express my great appreciation for the articles you made about Intelligence collection management "& Co".

I am translating - the best I'm able to - in Italian the same articles.

Very glad to know you.

Best wishes, --Filippof (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

re:...
Sorry to disappoint your expectations about the weather... today it is quite ugly in Padova (Padua) [what a mean Paese do' sole, isn't it?].

If you understand Italian, I think you may find interesting the articles sub Riforma intelligence 2007, they are mostly a job by me, and they partially exist in German only, if I don't go wrong.

Bye.

--Filippof (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Swarming
I made a sourced reference to "swarming (military)" as I updated the article, Force multiplication, and wrote some material about it. Finding the term was red-linked, I'm asking you, as requested on the note, why it was deleted, or, more to the point, if there is a problem with having a decent page on the development of swarm tactics. They are a definite part of network-centric warfare and force multiplication.

Swarming is not restricted to human military. Some research I've described in MASINT deals with swarming an area with sensors or counter-sensors. I am aware of work on swarming areas with unmanned aerial or ground combat vehicles.

Could you suggest next steps? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This was a proposed deletion, the policy and procedure of which is outlined there. The idea is that they are "uncontroversial" deletions, and will be restored under 99.9% of cases upon a "reasonable request". I consider your message about to fall into this category, so I have undeleted it. Cheers,  Daniel  23:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV Board
Never change another user's vandalism report. That is considered vandalism and you will be blocked if it happens again. - NeutralHomer  T:C 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look again, the left side is my report about 24.87.61.232, on the right is your report (on the bottom) and you changing the IP on my report to 63.110.147.2


 * It was completely obvious that your report about 63.110.147.2 was there and there was no need for you to change mine. Just don't let it happen again. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I never made a threat (I am not an admin, I can't block you) and I would be more than happy to let it be as a mistake and bygones be bygones, but once you insulted my Aspergers, I don't think that can happen. Next time, I will just report you without the courtesy warning.  Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.... NeutralHomer  T:C 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, you are giving me a heavy migraine. Just don't let it happen again.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I need a Vicodin. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 20:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Categories for Intelligence (information gathering)
''Thanks for reading the articles and adding that category, of which I was unaware. As you may have noticed (see my user page if not, which, in a couple of minutes, I'm going to reorganize to bring out topics), I've both initiated a series of intelligence articles, as well as on closely related subjects such as arms control verification and special operations.''

''I'll have to admit that I don't yet have a true sense of the use of categories. I'm wondering if we need more. "Espionage", for example, is something that is well down in an organized hierarchy (taxonomy if you will). Espionage is both one of a means of collecting (but not analyzing) information, but it's only one aspect of doing so. Realistically, many people coming to the subject think espionage = intelligence. Espionage is a subset of a subset, but we need to deal with both the person who wants a quick definition, and the person who really wants to understand the role of espionage, and, to a Wikipedia-appropriate level, how it is done.''

''There is a lot of information on fictional characters and TV shows in some of the current intelligence articles, which I'd really like to move to separate lists. Any thoughts would be welcome, and thanks again. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)''


 * You probably didn't notice that category because I just created it; it was essentially to weed out those topics in the problematic Category:Intelligence by genre which dealt with intelligence gathering, as opposed to braininess. I've just made a note at Category:Espionage noting the existence of Category:Intelligence (information gathering). Hopefully, that will help people find what they're looking for. --Eliyak T · C 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That does sound better. Let me ask your advice on subcategories; there are (offhand) about 6-8 subdisciplines. Some of those have 0 or 1 children, but others have 6 or more. This is a learning experience for me about categories, so I'm glad to have the guidance. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

''Excellent! Do you think subcategories of intelligence(information gathering) would be appropriate? There is a key difference between gathering the intelligence and deciding what it means. In the meantime, I'll put this category into any articles you've missed. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)''


 * Please note the following relevant parent-child categories: Category:Data management > Category:Data collection > Category:Intelligence (information gathering) > Category:Intelligence analysis. The last category would seem to deal with the evaluation of gathered intelligence. --Eliyak T · C 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to make another point. Many related articles belong in, or are already in, subcategories of Category:Intelligence (information gathering). For example, you just added the category to HUMINT - but it was already in the subcategory Category:Intelligence gathering disciplines. Adding it to the main category is counterproductive, since doing this to many articles will make the category page very crowded and less useful. --Eliyak T · C 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

''I see your point. Now, I tend to think of intelligence gathering and intelligence analysis, as well as, for that matter, intelligence tasking and intelligence dissemination, as siblings. The parent is intelligence cycle management. The direct children of gathering, again from the view in this discipline, would be the "INTSs": IMINT, SIGINT, HUMINT, MASINT, TECHINT, OSINT. There are several things somewhat to the side, such as intelligence cycle security, of which counterintelligence, operations security, and a variety of other "SEC"s are children. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)''


 * So do you think that Category:Intelligence (information) would be a better title for the main category? --Eliyak T · C 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation help (HUMINT)
I'm not quite sure... when you wrote:

"Interpreters may have more knowledge of the local culture as well as the language, but the HUMINT manager must be cautious that the interpreter is not, for example, a member of a subculture, religion, etc., of the area, but would be offensive to the subject."

…could the word but be a mistyping and should it be substituted by the pronoun that (or, which would be the same, I think, the pronoun who )?

Very kind of you, thanks.

Be seeing you, --Filippof (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

'That' vs. 'who' in HUMINT
I obviously do not master English as you can, but actually the first word I thought of was 'that', and 'who' came for the second.

It is likely to mean something, don't you think?

Thank you for the immediate answer to my question.

Have a good night (? now in Italy it's almost 11.00 p.m., I'm nearly going to bed).

--Filippof (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

HUMINT completion
«Body-language shift. If the interpreter seems to change his body language or tone, the collector needs to learn the reason. This may be a justification to suspend the questioning until the »

The italicised sentence is likely to be uncomplete. I completed it in Italian, (it:HUMINT) following the possible sense, but I think you'd better finish the job...

Thanks in advance.

Hi, --Filippof (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Internet Protocol - response
I wanted to let you know that I responded to your message on my talk page, and I'll be continuing our discussion on  OSI model's talk page. I look forward to working with you. Also, I may as well take the time now to thank you for your work on that article. I found the article very helpful when studying for one of my final exams, and I know that you have spent a lot of time improving it. Thanks again :-). -FrankTobia (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (per your reply) Apology accepted. I understand how anyone could get offended over such an edit to their work. Of course, I don't think you were caustic or ill-mannered at all. Thanks for the feedback and the humorous story :-). -FrankTobia (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Attack Helicopter
That was a good edit you added to the article today. I found it quite accurate, and clarifying in the area of what is and is not an dedicated attack helicopter.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OSI Model
I believe your categorization of network management protocols as network protocols is a misinterpretation of the OSI model. IP, AppleTalk, and IPX create addressing schemes and host-to-host communication standards that abstract the data link layers below them.

Routing protocols, such as RIP, OSPF, and IS-IS are applications that allow routers (hosts) to trade information with one another. They do not create or modify existing addressing schemes, nor can they be used independently of the network layers below them. ICMP is another example. ICMP is IP protocol 1 because it is a method for two hosts to transfer information across an IP network. ICMP does not create another network in and of itself.

ARP, unfortunately, confuses matters because it is related to IP, but has its own Ethertype (which would seem to classify it as layer 3). ARP is *also* arguably a layer 7 protocol, but is usually classified as layer 3 because it is usually very difficult (though possible) to use IP without ARP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnuttj (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
There's actually a second step involved: the creation of the actual request page (e.g. WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Swarming (military)); if that's not done, the template flags it as an error. I've gone ahead and created the page for you; any feedback will be found there. Kirill 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Let me go reread the instructions for peer review, and try to determine if it was my not reading carefully or if some elaboration might help. It sounds as if what you describe as a "second step" has to be the first, as the template needs to find the peer review page so that it does not generate an error.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In Swarming (military), I found two Harv tags that doesn't have a corresponding full citation. The are both {{Harv|Osgood|2003]}  Can you provide full information on this reference?  Thanks. &mdash; User: (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One more . Please provide full refs.  Thanks.  &mdash; User: (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have all of them reformatted. You wrote: I can fix it later, but I noticed note 4 should be a "d" on the first Edwards reference. The reason that it doesn't show up as a "d" on the first note is that on the other 3 reference, you did not supply a page number, while you did on the #4 citation. If I simply omit the p.2, then it can be a "d". Your call, as you did the research on this.

On thing to note on formatting &mdash; the tags are meant to go directly after the punctuation, not before it.

Please let me know if I messed up any of the references. &mdash; User: (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Whirlwind-2003
Here is one that might be a problem. You had one citation labeled "Whirlwind-2003" (for which there is still a Harv ref), which seemed to match which I relabeled . However, at the time, I noted that the citation had the author as Splinter Group C. The remaining Harvard reference of "Whirlwind-2003" references an "expert panel". Could you sort these out? Are all the "Honan" references supposed to be to the Splinter Group C session on " Should swarming become a Tenet for Transformation?", or is it just the one that is left?

I'll be happy to help with the proper formatting. For the Splinter group, I'd use:  for:

&mdash; User: (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since both of the original instances of "Whirlwind-2003" referred to an expert panel, and Honan was separately cited without a tag, I made the change of the Whirlwinds to the SplinterC-2003 presentation. Let me know if I am wrong. &mdash; User: (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please check to see if the two instances of "SplinterC" that I have tagged are correct. They are what was originally "Whirlwind-2003". &mdash; User: (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk IP address
Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I blanked the question/comment by Special:Contributions/142.162.194.57. He is banned user User:Mark753. I just wanted to let you know, that in my edit summary I said "blanking comment by banned troll" I was not referring to you! :) I'm guessing he's trying to figure out as many ways as he can to force an IP change, and that he was fishing for someone that would shove beans up their nose. Thankfully you didn't. :) Happy editing. Knowledge Of Self |  talk  01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence collection management
Hi Hcb.

I'd like you take a look to these sentences:
 * Theorists and administrators and the administrator want a closely knit system whereby all requirements can be fed into a single machine, integrated, ranged by priorities, and allocated as directives to all parts of the collection apparatus.
 * Collectors demand specific, well-defined requests for information, keyed to his special capabilities.

It seems to me that "bold" parts of the sentences are not OK...

Thank you in advance, and best wishes for Christmas, New Year and so on.

--194.185.101.50 (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Human Rights
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Human Rights, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Human Rights. Kannie | talk 15:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was unaware of any discussion. Unlike a speedy deletion tag, you can contest this deletion by taking down a proposed deletion tag. I won't escalate this article to an AfD. Kannie | talk 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA Split
I follow Long Pages on Wikipedia to try to make them more user friendly and the CIA article popped up on my list as our longest content article. Since I noticed you'e been editing it a great deal, I was wondering if you would object to breaking off the geographic regions part into its own page, with a 1 paragraph, 1 link connector? That should go a long way to helping the size issue. Mbisanz (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that even with the splitting that's been done, there is still far to much sourced and unsourced info in the Regions secion of the main article. Could a disambig, briefly summarzing the whole regions issue, and pointing to your new pages be created? If you don't understand what I'm saying, can I give it a try to show you and then either undo or keep? Mbisanz (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob, seems like you have it under control. I just was scared of the main article having section after section of mini-commentary linking to a country article.  Incidentally, if you put the text  in the top of the page CIA Activities by Region: Americas, Africa, Asia-Pacific (removing the colon since I don't want to tag your talk page for deletion), it will be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Health and Economy
A tag has been placed on CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Health and Economy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FadedSoul (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the speedy template but you need to whip it into some soty of shape as it reads luke a meta article rather than a real one at the moment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation
An article that you have been involved in editing, CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will provide an explanation on the AfD page. Biruitorul (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr Berkowitz, just put in my 2 cents on the AFD. However, rereading the article afterwards, I realise that the linkages to the CIA's actual activities are sometimes not made very clear. I really support what you're doing, but initially in the project buildup stage you might consider only adding info directly on what the CIA has been proven to be doing on these topics. Kind regards and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA related stuff
So I've have your talk page on my watchlist since last week and think the reason the splits of the CIA are is turning out to be so challenged are two reasons. 1. You've set up the new articles as "CIA Activities by X" If you look at the naming conventions, you'll see that hierachies are somewhat discouraged. However, you can use things like the "main" and "see also". Also, a lot of people don't like self-references, so "Given the extensive number of CIA activities, several articles are needed, divided on geographical and transnational issues" is an immediate turnoff. Shorter titles like "CIA Involvement in Russia & Europe" or "CIA Activities Related to Terrorism" would probably be better received. Also, if you do decide to rename, make sure you use the "move" function, not the copy/paste function, as that will tick off editors. 2. Your somewhat of an expert/insider in the field I believe. Most of us here are not. So what might seem like a self-evident "fact" to you, is something none of us might know, (and therefore willc all it original research). For instance "Problem statement" may be a term used in the field with great authority, but to many people here, that looks like you've thought up a problem and a solution and are publishing it here.

I'm gonna take a quick run through the articles and try and create a template nav-bar to replace the article headings you've created for each article. Mbisanz (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So I created the nav-box. What you can help me with is to find all the CIA-related articles The World Factbook that I can then add into it.  I'm gonna drop it into of the pages you mention.
 * Also, I saw this article CIA drug trafficking which is very similar to CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Crime and Illicit Drug Trade I know you are looking to make more neutral the point of view of the CIA as this antagonistic agency, but we can't do content forks of "pro article", "con article".
 * Right now I'm also going through and pulling this text "There are multiple CIA sub-articles, divided on geographical and transnational ..." since the navbox is the better way to show a relationship. Mbisanz (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Activities isn't a word I like. Involvement is a word I prefer. I'm also gonna propose we merge the "Illicit Drug Trade" part of your article into articles like CIA drug trafficking

, CIA and Contra's cocaine trafficking in the US and focus the article on the CIA's involvement in non-drug related crimes.Mbisanz (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm willing to hear real evidence, I've never heard anything really substantial about the allegations, mostly in California, that CIA personnel, as a part of their duties, were part of cocaine distribution in the US. I have no trouble believing that one group was helping smuggle it out of South America while a different group was trying to stop the trade. That something that controversial managed to stay utterly secret seems implausible. IIRC, one San Jose Mercury-News reporter was at the heart of most of the accusations, and much of what he was saying didn't stand up to criminial investigation.


 * Sometimes, the best test for whether something meets the smell test is what the lawyers call cui bono-- "who benefits"? For example, the Swiss have had a strategy, going before WWII, to have their regular military time to give their reserves time to get into the Alps. Why would the Swiss have benefitted from CIA advice on stay-behind networks? Would there have been CIA people that were the experts on mountaineering and high-altitude combat? Switzerland isn't exactly a low-tech company; Hagelin AG is about the only company that ever made money purely on encryption gear, and they are Swiss. The Gladio stuff didn't make sense.


 * In like manner, why take the risk of scandal by active participation in retailing drugs, when you might just bribe, or look the other way? Again, if there is real evidence, I'm happy to look at it objectively. Mostly, though, I hear a lot of conspiratorially minded people that have prejudged something stinks and they will look for things that support their idea and ignore things that don't. That certainly isn't limited to the US, if you look at India, or Russia, or any of a number of places. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement that CIA drug trafficking is lightly sourced, but they are sources and we do give all but the most fringe ideas inclusion Fringe theories. The best guide I can give as to how to report on Crimes issue is that I believe the CIA has been accused of many crimes (obstruction of justice in Watergate for instance) and has been accused of so many drug-related crimes that anything dealing with drugs, should be in an article like "drug trafficking" or "use of controlled substances".  Since the most pressure right now is on CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation. I'm gonna try to bring it to a point of non-deletion, and then work on the other 9. Mbisanz (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD Article workup
I took the Org res and Prob Stat sections of CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation and reworked them as best I could. You'll see my notes on questions I had when you edit each section. Also, I've dropped in fact tags to point out assertions that need sources. If it survives deletion, I'll look over the rest of it, unless you beat me there. Mbisanz (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope that comment wasn't meant for you, its another project I'm working on that collided. also, for your own wellness of mind, never lose sleep over wikipedia.  Everything any of us does can be deleted or recovered by the software.  And as a point, deletion issues must last at least 5 days, so no one could delete CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation until at least Jan 3.  But from the way the debate is going, it looks like it will be kept.  I'm taking another pass now that I've had a couple hours of rest. Mbisanz (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just looked at your edits, very very tight stuff. Articles with those sorts of citations and that style will not be challenged (and might even win an award if done very well).  I'm sure your probably busy with the new year (or should be), so I'll look over this set over the next few days (weeks), maybe make some comments or stuff, but nothings going anywhere for awhile.  I just wanted the lead of this article to get to where it would survive the debate. Mbisanz (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CIA Again
Yea, I'm fairly certain he was either refering to you or some of the past controversey over times we've tracked anon. IP editors back to their registry and its turned out to be the CIA, NSA, Royal Family of Belgium. Don't worry about it, I've been accused of trying to protect the CPA brotherhood by declaring I'm not a CPA. As far as renaming, for the geo ones, how does "CIA activities related to X" and for the topical "CIA and transnational X". I'm going on a busienss trip for the weekend, but can probably squeeze this change and maybe some content edits in this afternoon. MBisanz  talk 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a good background to have, your someone this project needs, (ie someone with professional experience). Incidentally, you might want to drop User:DGG a line as I believe he's a librarian/library prof., who I suspect is near your age.   MBisanz  talk 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the geographic article titles, I'm open to anything understandable. When I picked my first set, I did organize them around the CIA's published geographic offices, which seemed to be logical enough since they do publish some regional as well as national reports. "Activities" is the issue here: my impression is that he believes that the only things that should be discussed are covert action, and I believe both intelligence analysis/estimates and clandestine intelligence collection (when we know about it) also are "activities"


 * Gents, I'll step in here, rather than spreading the discussion around.
 * Geographic breakdown makes sense to me, largely based on my experience of product from the UK equivalents of the US agencies. I'd agree that activities should encompass the range of business activities of the agencies; collection (overt, discrete and covert), processing, dissemination and action (overt, discrete and covert).
 * ALR (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL...my IP address is on Comcast. Believe me, I have lots of conspiracy theories about cable TV companies. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As we get more involved int he project, our user talk page tends to grow. Some users just delete old conversations, but others have them automatically archived.  If you wanted to and told me how many days worth of old conversations you wanted to keep on the page (I keep it for 10 days usually, but you could probably do 20 or 30), I could set it up for you.   MBisanz  talk 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

email
You send email to people on Wikipedia by clicking the link "e-mail this user" at the left hand top of the screen; it works for anyone who has activated email in their user preferences--most people do, including yourself, and all admins are required to. it's better not to give your email elsewhere on the page. DGG (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to whitewash anything, but also not take every allegation as gospel
I'm writing this directly, on the theory that it never hurts to have direct communication. I am thoroughly confused about what you are saying about SPA and self-acknowledged CIA employee, if you are referring to me.

As far as mainspace contributions, I've done a good deal in computer networking, fisheries management and monitoring, some medical work, and various areas of interest that caught my eye. I have never been an employee of any intelligence agency, although when, for example, I worked for the Library of Congress, I did work with some counterparts at NSA and CIA about shared technical problems. These were mostly about how to make 1970s vintage workstations work with nonroman alphabets, and how to wire up large campuses before LAN technology was commercial. On Wikipedia, my first intelligence-related contributions, and those of which I'm most proud, dealt with the management and cognitive processes of intelligence, independent of any national agency.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Hcberkowitz I moved the message here. I will watch this page so there is no need to respond on my talk page.
 * I will change and tone down that section on talk. I really complimented you on the CIA talk page.
 * Don't worry, I am sure you are not a CIA employee. I never stated you were. I know you are not a SPA either.
 * You shouldn't take every allegation as gospel. Wikipedia should be well sourced.
 * Oh by the way, please avoid adding templates to sentences. is a huge template, which messes up entire sections.
 * I have been an editor for 2 years and my political views are in the minority. The majority of my edits with User:travb are political. I have written dozens of articles, maybe hundreds, and edited thousands in those two years. From the beginning of my edits, people have deleted large cited references that I have contributed because they don't like what I wrote. As time progressed I found that I was spending vast amounts of time policing the contributions I made. I shouldn't have to police well referenced cited material but I have been forced too.
 * On the other hand, I will actively support anyone who has contributed material. There are so many examples. One recent example is that I defended the ultraright website frontpagemag from deletion.
 * I have quit wikipedia several times and cleared my hundreds of watch list articles, but I always seem to come back. After I stopped the SPA from deleting the entire negative section I left wikipedia. Currently I am on a forced wikibreak on my account, because I was planning on walking away, disgusted, from wikipedia. I fixed my computer so it wouldn't access wikipedia at notepad C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
 * But a couple of days ago I noticed that a huge section of the CIA article was gone. I attempted to find certain sections but couldn't, they had been moved or deleted like so many dozens of times before. These are sections which I spent hours citing.
 * Like most editors who are sympathetic to the CIA, you removed these sections.
 * Anyway so that is where I am coming from. I'm thinking that I want this to go to AfD so some kind of rules can be established about editors who delete sections. Not you. You didn't delete sections. But other recent editors. I shouldn't have to spend hours each week babysitting exhaustively research articles and sections because someone doesn't like what is written.

Please read my compliments on the talk page. User:travb 04:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The talk page is getting as hard to read as the article was a month ago. Without knowing the specific sections you have in mind, I wonder if the content might still be around, but under other headings/articles, and I might know where it is.


 * I don't think I made massive deletions, but I may have put a lot of other material around something. Offhand, I'd suspect my largest deletions had to do with early Afghanistan, with things like Morris claiming it was the greatest tragedy in the history of nation-states. Ummm...there was something that happened between 1939 and 1945, or we can go back to 1931.


 * If you can give me a better idea of the topics you are concerned about, I would be happy to tell you what I think happened to them -- if they were reorganized, moved, or deleted.


 * I'd hesitate to call myself "sympathetic" to the CIA, but I don't think they are the incarnation of evil. There are definitely some cases where their legal and ethical obligation was to tell the White House NO. In some of the worst abuses, they were not the only ones complicit. In other cases, there was no really good answer, but I can see some rationale for thinking they could reduce the injustice. While some of this might be hard to source, a good deal of it coming from living in the DC area for 40 years and being aware of more than many might be, there are books to be written on the relationship between the White House, and the pre-2004 CIA and now the DNI. Given that some of the most critical functions are now in the DNI, there is a legitimate discussion of whether the CIA should cut back to being the NCS and its necessary support, and perhaps separate the remaining parts of the DI, or even move them to State. I think having competing analytic shops is a good quality control. What to do with DS&T is a complex discussion of its own. The Special Collection Service, Division D, or whatever it's called these days isn't really a classic NSA mission, and now having MASINT as well as SIGINT, things are even more complex. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

IP editing as Travb
I've blocked for impersonating  on the CIA talk page. What a damned mess.  Acroterion  (talk)  05:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But now he's editing under his account.   Acroterion  (talk)  05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up Userspace
If you add to a page in your userspace, it will be deleted a few hours later by an admin, but it only works for pages that you alone have edited or are in your userspace. Hmm, these rather scarily formatted pages Department directory and List of shortcuts are probably the best places to start for detailed stuff. As far as article content/tone or questions, I'd suggest Manual of Style and Help:Contents. Or just ask someone who seems like they've done what your trying to do before.  MBisanz  talk 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation problems
I'm having problems both with certain citations not working the way I expect, as well as not knowing how to cite certain material.

Please see CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Human Rights.

Problem 1: cite book when using chapter references
First, look at the Call and Kelly citations. I would like to change things such that the book title doesn't attach to the URL and get something unreadable. It appears this has something to do with citing chapter and title, as it doesn't seem to be a problem with cite book with title only.
 * Hello Hcberkowitz. I am working on your issues in order. The URLs in the two citations were missing "http://" at their openings, so the software wasn't recognizing them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem 2: inline citations with different strings in the middle
Second, I am using inline citations for a GAO report, such as less-than ref name=GAO1992-03-05 greater-than GAO1992-03-05, "BACKGROUND" section less-than /ref greater-than

What I think should be happening is the string in the middle, "BACKGROUND" or "RESULTS IN BRIEF" or "LIMITED POLICY GUIDANCE OR CENTRAL MANAGEMENT" section should create different footnotes for each quoted string. In other words, if I had two references with "BACKGROUND" and three with "RESULTS IN BRIEF", I'd expect to get ab-(GAO citation) BACKGROUND and abc-(GAO citation) RESULTS IN BRIEF. What is happening, however, is the footnotes come out with everything pointing to the same GAO citation.

Can I force this to break up the citations by the text following ref name-?
 * What you need to do is create a separate footnote for each citations you want to identify by section. So the first you will have to name something like "GAO1992background" and use it for all citations which come from the background; for citations to RESULTS IN BRIEF, a separate reference with a ref name something like "GAO1992brief". By the way, you never need to repeat the first references markup. After your first reference with a particular name, the next time you want to use that citation all you do is type . Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem 3: citing legislation
Third is how to cite both legislation and US Code. Clearly, I am not using the right template. I know how to cite court decisions, but I can't find things for legislation and statutes. Examples:

I want to cite an act called the The International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1981. Its legislative reference is 1 P.L, 97-113, sec 721(d), 95 stat. 1519. I don't know the US Code reference, but I can track that down. If I don't have the USC, can I reference this so it works properly in footnotes?

Issue 3.5 is how to cite USC.

Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On this issue, if there is no template that has tailored parameters for the type of cite you are using, don't use a citation template. The use of citation templates is completely optional. They are used to help you organize material, but the goal is to leave behind as transparent a citation as possible, allowing anyone who comes to the article to see exactly where the information comes from. Some users even argue that citation templates are distracting because they make the text in edit mode harder to read and harder to edit for inexperienced users. See Citing sources. I'm not sure this needs to be said, but I've seen confusion about this in the past: anything you add between tags will appear in the references section, whether a citation template is used or not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, using the markup code, you can add bold, italics, underlines, etc inbetween the referencing if your shooting for style consistency.  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your message on my talk page, I hope we're not misunderstanding, I am in no way saying—as I thought you might be implying when you wrote "citation/noncitation"—that an inline citation shouldn't be used; I'm saying that a citation template to format the inline citation is optional:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand why I confused you with nowiki tags (it is a result of your looking at my messages in edit mode rather than as regular text). Let's get that out of the way first. surrounding a piece of text in nowiki tags tells the software: DO NOT FORMAT WIKICODING. So if I type in edit mode Boldface markup  what you will see when I save is Boldface markup rather than Boldface markup. What you did was look at what I wrote in edit mode, rather than in saved mode and thought (I think) that you need to use nowiki tags for citations. No. My messages were intended for you to look at on your talk page in regular reading mode. The reason I used them was because when I gave examples of citation markup, the software wouldn't show my text, but rather would have propogated them; you would have seen where I used reference markup, instead of this--->[1]. I hope that's clear, but let me say this if it's not, I never meant for you to see any nowiki tags but was using them to format my text; don't use them for citations!

Regarding the GAO issue, no I know of no way to use a single reference. So here's a working example (this you should look at first on this screen, and then in edit mode to see how it was done.

First sentence using background section of GAO

Second sentence using background section of GAO.

Third sentence using background section of GAO.

First sentence using result in brief section of GAO, have to use a new reference.

Second sentence using Result in Brief section of GAO

Attack Helicopter
I was trying to get someone's attention on this article in the Modern Attack Helicopter section. It is so poorly written, mainly botched up when someone decided that Russian helicopters needed to be compared to American helicopters in the midst of a discussion of future helicopter technology trends. Please go to Talk page and read my comments. I'll wait a couple of days to see what happens. Thanks.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Analytic tradecraft and Wiki
Hi Howard,

I'm responding to your last comments here because this is not directly relevant to CIA page discussion. Some notes:


 * Intelligence analysts do have some practical tools available (I don't know how much these tools are used in reality, but they are available), such as this one.
 * There is a problem among agencies of being able to search among databases which have grown up over time with different technologies and which have different ownerships and classification levels. For example, just after 9/11, doing a search on Immigration, Motor Vehicles, Passports, Crime and Espionage databases simultaneously would be impossible, and probably still is.
 * Actually, that sort of data mining was and is very common in the commercial world. Some of the firms using it intensely were Sears, Roebuck, which would start by going through the purchase records of their customers to target them for advertising. Credit card companies looked at your spending patterns to see if a particular purchase might suggest a stolen card.


 * Many companies use the extensive personal files of the credit reporting services to assemble profiles on potential customers and solicit them. There is a tremendous amount of personal data available, usually for a price, from non-government data companies.


 * Wikipedia software is useful, but you need to train people to use it, you have to breach the above agency and classification boundaries to get useful searches, and you need to forget about some Wikipedia humanly-enforced policies which would not be appropriate to sorting out factoids, e.g. policies against putting in
 * Entries about people who are not famous
 * Small entries
 * Original research
 * Unproven allegations
 * Wikipedia doesn't have (needs) the ability (say as an extension of Search) to sort out and categorize and present multiple views, e.g. the view topic -> region -> country -> date which is one among many possible sorts.
 * So it is possible in Wikipedia proper to introduce facts about historically significant people, but not possible to do so for factoids on un-famous people. For example, there are pages on the Internets that give photocopies of incorporation filings for business partners of Atta in Florida, implicitly pointing a finger at businessmen still living and working in Florida who belong to the Moroccan American Chamber of Commerce.  It is not a good idea to name those people in Wikipedia for many reasons including:
 * The legal powers and authority for investigating relationships of people with Atta resides with people in Government. Such investigations, for fairness and effectiveness reasons, require privacy and the legal authority to quietly invade privacy.
 * While I happen to be a strong advocate of privacy, it is my informed opinion that, in the absence of strong privacy laws (e.g., European Union), business will rise to create commercial databases or search companies that can get incredible amounts of personal data.


 * I'm guessing you are not in the US, by some of the times you edit. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not going to assume you know some of the details about privacy issues here, especially vis-a-vis government. I have been quite vocal in saying the Bush Administration is flouting the Constitution in surveillance issues, but I recognize the law is soft in these areas. For example, there is a distinction made between the spoken content of a telephone, and the "Call detail record" (CDR) information that gives the phone numbers of the called and calling party, time and date, length of call, etc. There is legislation that says the Attorney General can certify a "pen register" that reords only the CDR information. There is also a Supreme Court case, Smith vs. Maryland, that says that an individual has no expectation of privacy on their call records.


 * All this law, however, has been focused on individuals, not masses of people such as everyone making a phone call in the US. Law has evolved to allow a wiretap, with a warrant, against a person, rather than a specific phone number, to deal with the problem of throwaway cell phones. This is one of the fairer aspects of the PATRIOT Act (Section 206). We don't know exactly what the large-scale NSA monitoring programs were doing, but it appears they were capturing large amounts of call detail information. Do cases such as Smith vs. Maryland still apply when dealing with masses of data, or are warrants required when a surveillance reaches a certain size? No one really knows, and the current Administration doesn't appear to care.


 * Putting allegations of relationships in web pages exposes the allegee to unfair prejudice and the allegor and website to legal process.
 * This is one of the reasons I don't like throwing in poorly sourced or unsourced allegations about government agencies as well as against individuals. An effective and responsible government agency has real people in it that do have morale issues.


 * Wikipedians are not in general trained in law enforcement and intelligence, and both of those activities, as professional endeavors, actually come with lots of training.
 * Yes, and I have had training in intelligence analysis, but also closely related this such as medical diagnosis and computer software.

So yes, those guys need better tools. Wikipedia proper is not the place to try things out, though.


 * I'm confused. Who is trying things out? If you are talking about the intelligence community, there is a very active program, mostly led by NSA, to use wiki software internally; there are classified Intelliwikis reachable only through secure networks such as JWICS. I am not bothered by intelligence agencies using the public Wiki any more than I am about them going to a public library to research something -- and the latter is quite different from them getting the records of what books some individual has read,.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Howard,


 * Sorry, I was misreading
 * You have given me an idea, and that may be to take factoids, perhaps from you and others, put them on one of my user pages, and manipulate them to connect the dots. If that connecting takes a sloppy turn, it isn't disrupting the main article... When the draft comes together, than it can be moved into the main article in much cleaner form. If we could get to a collaborative mode, preferably using some of the same analytic tradecraft, there might be a very productive division of labor....This is not a solved problem....the FBI is an exceptionally decentralized agency, which is fine for law enforcement but not fine for connecting dots in counterespionage or counterterror. The 9/11 Commission observed that if someone had put together factoids that were in at least two offices (Phoenix, and, IIRC, Chicago), the dots might have connected into some semblance of the 9/11 attack plan. The US intelligence community is still struggling with how to do that better, without overload....
 * I misread your comments as expressing a desire to try to come up with something better than the FBI is doing, using wiki sandbox and user pages, as private citizens and Wikipedia editors.


 * It's good to know the Government is using internal wikis, it's comforting to assume that they are ahead of the curve.


 * If you really put in and cross-referenced all of the valid information in books on CIA etc. and worked your way up to present day, you would have a database that would list a lot of individual non-famous working people who have a reasonable right to privacy (various CIA officers are named Ghost Wars for example) and if you look at web references such as ones I cited above, individual non-famous people who are also possibly connected with the Attas of the world, and so on...and eventually you would cross a line where the information is a little too good and too well-organized and too fresh and about people still going about their business, and things could get uncomfortable. So I've actually lost my appetite for the project, I think it has authentic risk elements, so for my part I am feeling like letting CIA page et al drop for now. Some example risk scenarios are:
 * It can become a form of vigilantism when dealing with, say, trying to identify all people in the Al Queda chain of command and support network leading up to 9/11.
 * Working people in Government could get annoyed, for the same reasons that one or two Government people might have gotten annoyed when the NY Times starting printing photographs and tail numbers of CIA rendition aircraft.
 * The story of 9/11 probably starts with Gertrude Bell and moves forward from there (unless you want to start with the Crusades, as one particularly bad movie starring Harvey Keitel in a pay-me-so-I-can-go-home role that I rented last night does). The Ghost Wars book has the CIA, Pakis ISI and SAs GIA all vying for the right to supply arms to the Afghani muj, with OBL being a favored representative of the GIA.  So if you have a really comprehensive database of relationships between different country's intelligence agencies and different countries agendas and covert actions over time -- these are all the roots of 9/11, the iceberg of which 9/11 is the tip.  Such a database would be valuable for counterterrism and counterinsurgency moving forward.  But for above reasons a public attempt at this would entail risks for individual editors.  Also as a public entity, such a database can be gamed -- I gave the example of Wiki's Ataturk page, which will not absorb a reference to Armenian genocide for more than 5 minutes.
 * Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chad books
Hi Howard,

I'll order them, my French is assez suffisant.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Heuer's book
Hi Howard,

I took a look at Heuer's book on the web. I wonder if people taking the Army red team course are taught this book.

I think people in the Army have learned by now that in Middle East deployments they should learn the language and get to know the locals. I think the U.S. is very weak on the issue of language training. But in terms of counterinsurgency doctrine they have learned to get out of their mega-sized forward operating bases and more into what we might as well call Community policing.


 * Very good points. One of my colleagues' sons was deploying as a Marine reservist to Iraq, and his father was asking for advice on things he should take with him. I asked if he was taking a CD player, and was told he was. "Good," I said. "Give him a set of Arabic language lessons. It may save his life."


 * The US Defense Language Institute is often considered the best language school in the world, but its basic Arabic course, intended to give minimum professional proficiency, takes 63 weeks. Obviously, this can't be given to everyone. I've been impressed with some of the pocket guides (and phrasebooks) that have been issued to the troops; the Marine one is especially good.


 * Language is one of the great challenges. I only speak a few phrases of Arabic, but, a while back, I was in a hospital after some intestinal bleeding. One of the hospital doctors, I learned, was Pakistani. He said he thought I was getting better, and I said "Insh'Allah". He looked like he had run into a glass wall, and asked "WHAT did I say?" I repeated it, and, in an odd tone, he said goodbye in Arabic, and I responded properly.


 * A couple of hours later, two nurses came by, and asked what I had done. Dr. X, they said, hated everybody, but he came out of my room, went to the nursing station, and told them I was to be treated as would want a member of his family treated.


 * I'm certainly not skilled in languages, and it was a running joke that when I tried to speak the appropriate language, I invariably said it Svensk to the Danes and in Dansk to the Swedes.

Language training is even more important for making friends because one of the most common tactics in Iraq is to kill translators.

I think the average Army guy's thoughts might wander more towards "let's blow up Al Jazeera" than it does towards "do they like me?".


 * Some units and commanders are aware of that. You might want to look up the Marine xombined action platoons. Special Forces are different, in that language and cultural training are routine for them. Have you read The Ugly American, which is totally different than the image that the phrase invokes? I'd suggest it as required reading.

To that end, if I were teaching Red Team course, I would prescribe a series of books like the ones I have mentioned, plus these: and a series of Movie Nights including to be contrasted with films like
 * "Behind the Veil: An American Woman's Memoir of the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis" by Debra Johanyak
 * "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" by Stephen Kinzer
 * The Battle of Algiers (film)
 * Clip #1311 on http://www.memritv.org/
 * HBO Documentary Hot House
 * True Lies
 * You mean anyone treats that as other than a comedy? It's especially funny if you know the Washington DC area, is the dialogue has him saying where he's going, and he takes off in a completely different direction.

This is a short and random list of compare-and-contrast films, I think I would pair up various Hollywood entertainments with their polar opposites from other countries.
 * Rambo III

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert, nota bene
Stephen Colbert Causes Chaos on Wikipedia, Gets Blocked from Site. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

angola and other cover ops revisions
Hi Howard,

Can you put updates not in Covert Ops but in the branch page?

I am doing the wikilinks to demonstrate that nothing is lost in branches -- then I want to delete whole covert ops section in favor of a reference to the branches.

I don't want to go back to putting heading tags on covert ops because then we are redoing work that was done prior to making the branches, so we are just back to where we were on 4 jan 08 prior to the deletion orgy and we are spinning our wheels.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-IntelOversight
Hello. It appears that you mistakenly created Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-IntelOversight when you meant to create User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-IntelOversight. I have moved the former to the latter. Cheers — Travis talk  01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the comment and edit summary you left at Articles for deletion/Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-IntelOversight. The debate was already closed since I moved the article as I state above, so I reverted your comment. Not to worry, since it’s now where it should be, the article isn’t going to be deleted. — Travis talk  01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Had edit conflict with a bot. Then computer went weird Sorry for the inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvorak (wtkwhite) (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it
Hello Hcberkowitz, I appreciate that material staying in the CIA article, despite you objections.

I had changed notepad C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts so I can't actually see wikipedia on my computer, when I visit wikipedia I get an error message.

I am still on a forced wikiholiday until today. I came back today to see how the article is going. I wanted this ultimately to end up in arbitration, but maybe this is the wrong article to do it.

Forgive me for not spending hours talking on the talk page. I am really tired of the same recycled reasons for those sections being removed.

I appreciate your courtesy. I know a week ago you were emailing other users to join the fray, and those messages were less cordial about me, but they still were very respectful.

Anyway, best wishes. I will check in, in a week or so. travb 10:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Year 2000 problem
Hello,

I see you removed the image on Year 2000 problem due to what looks like formatting issues. Looking at the wikicode, it seems the issue was just a missing "[" at the beginning of the image tag. As the "artist" (if you can call that art), I'm a bit hesitant to restore the image myself, since a couple editors expressed views against it being there... and I myself am not really sure if I think it should be there or not (I agree that it's not really informative at all). Any thoughts? — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll just leave it as is for now and see if the issue comes up at some point in the future.
 * You have quite an interesting professional history! :-)
 * — xDanielx  T/C\R 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Medea Benjamin Books on Amazon
You deleted a section on Code Pink referencing Medea Benjamin's books on Cuba and said only one such book appears on Amazon. Sorry, I beg to differ. I don't know which Amazon you were looking at but I was looking here  http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&index=books&field-author=Medea+Benjamin&page=1

Wyatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FININT
Hi Howard,

I had a look at FININT and I added a few entries for your entertainment. Otherwise what is called FININT is far away from my bread and butter which is building systems for the options market.


 * Not a problem. I thought you might have a TECHINT interest since you had mentioned the Farewell Dossier. Let me comment on a backwater of the language problem with which I had to work.

I'm not that interested in TECHINT. There are other things that attract my attention more. For example, I notice in your SIGINT article that you talk about intercepting conversations but not about translating them. Many foreign conversations are not in English. Often it is not clear what language they are in. Also people can text each other. Then there is not a problem of translating phonemes into text, but you still need to know what language it is, and how to translate it. Thirdly, there are many languages that are not well-known. This leads to the problem of how, if one solves the first few problems in a reasonably general way (Language identification and the development of usable software for machine translation), one might design a system that allows you to rapidly acquire the syntax, semantics and vocabulary of a new language, what might be called Artificial grammar learning or grammar induction. Language learning and machine translation are great problems. This is an area the Govt should be flooding with cash, but it is not obvious that this is the case, because I don't know of any academic computational linguistics departments awash in cash. I have seen one sign that industry cares: A young job applicant for a finance job that I had to interview listed a Google natural language patent participation on his resume, so Google is putting resources in.


 * I'm told that the government is putting money into pure language study, and am researching that for the daughter of a friend, going into her last year of high school, who wants a college major in Arabic. Supposedly, there are a number of government grants and scholarships for such studies, which I will try to find. It is a challenge to get across that to be able to do anything useful, she is going to have to study the cultures as well -- from my smattering of Arabic and a bit more cultural understanding, I can't imagine someone being able to interpret without understanding standard references from Islam, and understanding the kinship relations that modify names (e.g., Maryam bint Ahmed vs. Maryam Qassim). I know more Japanese, although not much, and I had translators speak of frustration at Americans who wanted to learn the language but not bother with the honorifics. Without honorifics to show relative status, it's not Japanese.


 * It's interesting that you mention identifying the language. Years ago (late seventies), I was the network architect for the Library of Congress. One of my tasks was attempting to develop a workstation that, ideally, would display all the orthographies (IIRC, about 140) in which we cataloged things, as opposed to the 800 or so languages. While I certainly can't tell if something is Kurdish, Arabic, Farsi, or Dari, I can recognize the Arabic orthography as opposed to, say, Sanskrit.


 * At the time, about the only other people who were doing multi-language terminals were in the intelligence community, and we shared the pain -- the technology of the time was simply not up to it. The problem was not one of complex graphics, and, as opposed to what many people expected, Chinese was not the hardest problem. Chinese ideographs, according to the language people, might be complex, bt were made up of a relatively small number of brushstroke equivalents, which they called radicals. There were 40 or so, and essentially every ideograph could be built from a list of them.


 * The nightmarish problem were the cursive ideographies such as Arabic. We had at least one major and one minor problem. Since the characters are connected (I don't remember if there are any single-character words), even at the beginning or ending of a word, simply pressing the key (a small number of characters), the display of the character was context-sensitive. Until the next character (or a space or carriage return) was pressed, we didn't know what to display, even though we had the various context-dependent forms stored. Our workaround was to display a blinking version of the canonical form of the character, which we would change to the correct form after we obtained contextual information from the next keystroke.


 * The minor problem was that while the alphabetic characters went from right to left, the digits went from left to right. This made for interesting problems when the user got to the end of a line -- did we wrap to the left or right margin? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another task is, assuming you could find an interlingua to use as the basis for the rapid language acquisition problem, to find good a good query language for the interlingua, so that you could store acquired texts of whatever language in the interlingua for search purposes.

The problem of speech recognition is less interesting to me. IBM seems to have a good handle on it with IBM ViaVoice. Again I assume the Govt is flooding this area with cash or ought to be. Again I don't see this cash because you don't hear a lot of buzz about jobs in speech recognition or anybody going on about the importance of speech recognition, and I don't see speech recognition listed in your SIGINT page. The language identification problem, though, is much simpler than speech recognition and reduces down to the question of equal compressibility, so the same solution applies to both language recognition in text and in continuous connected speech. I presume overall that a lot has been done since the Harpy system -- I don't have a sense of it, because it's a kind of problem that appeals more to signals processing types than to linguistic types.

Another task which I think would be fun to do is literally take all those books I've been reading and type them in line by line as a network of Wiki-style pages to do a kind of OSINT. This would be a very tedious task, kind of like computer animation, but resolving the contradictions in the resulting pool of information could lead to something interesting. You'd have to add some tools or a layer of discipline on using Wiki-style pages to keep the contradictory information in hand until you'd had a chance to resolve it, and also to keep track of "disproven" and "proven" information by keeping a trace of what the supports are. Of course a practical focus for this could be books on middle eastern history, politics, terrorism and so on -- what we face now.


 * Something I keep telling myself I should do for even personal OSINT, although I have higher programming priorities -- I've done network architecture rather than writing code for the last number of years, but I expect it will come back -- is to create a front end for the common search engines. That front end would allow me to pose my query in a non-user-friendly but highly-expert-friendly notation that lets me have such features as set-theoretic operations, better Booleans, and, above all, proximity searches (e.g., the search terms must appear in the same sentence/same paragraph/same page). Ironically, this was the direction in search languages intended for professional librarians, but was displaced by search engines for the masses. Cisco, for example, used to have a search tool for its documentation that allowed proximity searching, but they switched to Google.


 * In my medical work, I do touch on the semantic web, which may be yet another way of doing serious searching. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another task is to take a program like The Sims, give it a physical geography like, say, Husayba, and populate it with a mix of civilians, military and foreign fighters with bombs. Then, unlike in the Sims where the action is controlled somewhat by an observer, and has a single timeline -- run it 1,000 times with some random inputs in place of the observer, and for each of the 1,000 runs, put dots on the map where an attack has taken place, with the size of the dot corresponding to the amount of destruction, as measured in some way (people or property). This would give, as a practical result, if the emplacements of foreign and local fighters are accurate, and the tactics and weapons imputed to the foreign and local fighters are accurate, and their behavior and goals are accurately described -- this would tell you where you need to put your fence and what your downside is on average. An addition, you could compute, at the same time, derivatives of downside: e.g., change in average outcome if you change some parameter of your forces or the enemies forces a little bit. This goes under the general heading of Agent based model and wargaming, except that I've never seen a paper advocating the application of Monte Carlo method in the sense used above. This is another area I would assume that the Govt is on top of but maybe they're keeping it under their collective hat.


 * I've seen Monte Carlo methods, such as you describe, in various air warfare and nuclear warfare models, but not especially for unconventional warfare. The problem there tended to be one of sequencing: one aspect was, in a rolling manner, taking down air defenses for the next waves following. In nuclear warfare, you had to consider such things as ladder-north: assuming your missiles were coming over the Arctic, it was necessary to start with the southernmost of a group of targets and work north, so the reentry vehicles didn't have to fly through thermally disturbed wind. Another problem was the defense mode of "dense pack", where you place missile silos so close together that the debris cloud from attacking one would interfere, for a significant period of time, with precisely hitting another.


 * Oddities emerged, such as that if you blew up a large building (e.g., air defense headquarters for a region), subsequent cruise missiles using terrain contour mapping (TERCOM) guidance had to be told not to look for the presence of that building. Supposedly, some cruise missiles in 1991 went wild because they expected a landmark that was no longer there. It is a variant of the problem of deconflicting blue-on-blue attacks to avoid fratricide. I've touched on the latter in Swarming (military).


 * Hey, I fell asleep after dinner, just woke up, and writing is a way to relax...at least, writing about things I don't have to write about, such as navigation software for fishing vessels! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

There was a Japanese language translation project at NYU that had a Xerox Alto with a Japanese keyboard, in the 80's. This was unique at the time.

Sometimes doing searches for these pages I have run across results where it said "X is connected to Y is connected to Z". I'm having trouble finding the searches where that happens, I don't know if what I came up on is a static website or a search engine.

Google has some proximity search functions according to Proximity search (text).

I shared my simulation enthusiasms with some friends in DC but never heard back from them. So I assume that's been followed up to the extent that it needs to be. Also in general I assume that someone somewhere in Govt is pushing the machine translation agenda to the extent that it needs to be. Which is not to be confused with human interpreters -- I'm just thinking of machine translations as a requirement for NSA-style SIGINT.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War
Do not revert due to your apparent anti-Iranian prejudice. Please read WP:3RR. You have been engaged in edit warring on that page for quite some time and I am dedicated to making everyone aware of what is going on. You and your friend Ryan cannot gang up on everyone else. This is WP and there are rules. Your bias is obvious. Khorshid (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I first saw your commentary this morning. If you feel I am a sockpuppet, after extensive work on other subjects, please bring that up to an administrator. I don't know Ryan.


 * There is a continuing discussion on the US role. Rather than putting US flags into the disputed infobox, you might achieve more in a discussion on the talk page, or, in joining in a RfA on what increasingly looks insoluble.


 * As far as anti-Iranian bias, I've stated before that I considered CAPT Rogers worthy of a court-martial for what the lawyers call "depraved indifference to human life," a criterion for the crime of willful manslaughter. On the other hand, I do not consider releasing floating mines in international waters to be much less indifferent. I do believe in freedom of navigation.


 * There's no question that Saddam was the chief aggressor, but, as in many modern wars, there are many nations that do not remain completely neutral. World War II is usually described as the Axis Powers vs. the Allies, but rarely are more than three Axis powers mentioned. The tripartite pact eventually had other members.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Was it Engdahl or Schroeder
The Schroeder post said "I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book". So all of the text following that is copied from Engdahl's book, it's not Schroeder. Where Iranian sources are quoted, it's Engdahl quoting Iranians -- I guess. In this case I'm not actually going to FTD.com to buy the book because I don't care enough. In general any book whose title includes the words "New World Order" is guaranteed to put me to sleep, no matter how much of a good campside read it may be. Anyway, if you don't believe it's a direct Engdahl quote, try looking at his official website for a general sense of his Weltanschauung. Erxnmedia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Today, I am principally involved with the Weltanschauung of two banks in which we are trying to open a commercial account. I won't trust my German to say if this is their worldview, they exist in an alternate universe. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And now for another edit war
See Inter-Services Intelligence. (Until it gets deleted.) Erxnmedia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for several edits
Regarding the points without a "yes" or "no" in the templates: it is open to anyone to fill in the answer. I shall fill as many as I can but I defer it until I can compare the articles in terms of structure, citations, coverage etc, so there is a more uniform approach. But I answer the "grammar" point right away, if there is no problem with the article. Sv1xv (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War
You messed up the pictures (their tags) on Iran-Iraq War, please fix it. Thanks.
 * Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. If there's a problem, I'm not stopping you from fixing it. If you had an account and talk page, I could respond more intelligently. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ISI page
Mercenary2K came by and reverted it to a week ago, I restored it. M2K is from Pakistan.

CIA page deja vu.

Any thoughts?

I'd like to give same region/country/date treatment to sites for other agencies such as DGSE and Mossad but I'm afraid I'd need to hire a food taster.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there is some way to get before-the-fact protection, perhaps that would stop deletions without Admin approval. Another thing would be to have a sandbox where controversial material could be posted first and reviewed.


 * This is a pretty broad question about which, I suspect, Wikipedia is going to have to develop policies. Either the reviewers could be from a part of the world that isn't impacted, reviewers could be paired from both sides, or reviewers might have established a reputation for fairness. Do you have any idea where to bring this up other than the Village Pump, which indeed might be a start? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Howard,


 * I'll just watch ISI page edits.


 * People from India and Pakistan go into ISI occasionally but more on frequency of once a week or so to bias the page.


 * I think both sides are confounded by having something like an objective region/country/date format for operations, it doesn't conform to the "greatest hits and flops" format that I also see on Mossad page. Just putting something in "greatest hits and flops" format carries POV.


 * Do you think it is a good idea to extend region/country/date format for operations to these other pages?


 * Note that other pages get updated much less frequently than CIA page, I guess English wikipedia is U.S.-centric, which shouldn't surprise me.


 * Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Proximity Search
The search engine I was trying to remember I just stumbled on again: Namebase.org, see NameBase. It is actually targetted towards "all sorts of spooks", it's just the thing! Erxnmedia (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

CodePink
I see that you wrote a lot of stuff on my talk page with quotes from the German revolutionary and other thought-provoking stuff. I really don't have time to go through that now. I must say that the rightwing attack references you loaded up (seven paragraphs) the CodePink article with are somewhat disturbing to have to read through to evaluate for reliability and whether they support the text. I don't like that negativity, but it is important to me to have a good article about CodePink, a subject I am interested in. We should stick to more traditional references like BBC News or the Washington Post if possible, at least I wish we would. I am sure there are many leftwing attack references, I don't want to quote them either, and don't think I ever have. It is fine with me if you want to ask for arbitration or whatever; we really could use some other editors joining in at the very least. If I do not respond again for a while, do not be offended, I just have other things to do. DanielM (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of Google satelite imagery
Would you know if anyone had ever asked Google if their imagery can be used in Wikipedia? This site does so with satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

refimprove in Iran-Iraq War
It appears that you added many refimprove to the article. The problem is that this template is not meant for inline text, but instead plops a big obtrusive box. Even worse, it also does not appear to work in the  element, and the box is placed in the article text, not in the references section.

I'm not sure which inline tag you were looking for, so I suggest that you look at the listing at Template:fact and replace the refimproves accordingly. I'm assuming it's something like verify credibility? Kelvinc (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact and Fiction
On your user page, you wrote: "One of these days, I may attempt writing fiction and seeing if I have the talent required." Any idea what type of subject matter you might tackle? Given your encyclopedic (obviously) knowledge of intelligence-related subjects, might an espionage thriller be something that the readers of your Wikipedia articles could look forward to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plausible to deny (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. Areas where I can write from a strong knowledge base include intelligence (and associated C4ISRTA or whatever acronym is in vogue), medicine, and computer networks. Perhaps special operations, especially from the standpoint of cross-cultural operations.


 * Now, how do these come together? I'm told that network executives once tried to capitalize on the most popular themes of the time: Westerns, medicine, and law. The proposed show title was "Sioux the Doctor".


 * Seriously, the challenge is coming up with a couple of characters I care about, and then plot stories. I'm a good storyteller for educational analogies, but this is still new. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Biological warfare
The section 1937-1945 in the article Biological warfare has a template on Avoid weasel words. Can you please rewite the section so that the tag can be removed. Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletions on Central Intelligence Agency
Ok, I mistook the content is an excerpt from a copyright sources so I deleted it per WP:COPYVIO. I also pasted the content to my sandbox with a view to rewriting it later. Sorry if my action made you confused. Plus the paragraphs are mere copy-and-paste from the original sources, so I think we should paraphrase them as soon as possible to avoid misunderstanding again. And about the estimation imo it is better to remove this unsourced statement because when the information contain a statistic figure, we have to provide the source or it will become original research and the target for vandal (many IP vandals often virulently change the figure and it will make it hard for vandal fighters to recognize it if no source backing up is given). Cheers @pple complain 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Propagandist sources and the weeding through thereof
Re: your MILHIST inquiry.. I deal with lots of Soviet propaganda sources. They tend to be the least "polluted" where discussing subjects with no usefulness for propaganda. Inaccuracies escalate from there: biographies, treaties, historical events, recountings of military events. (And even if a supposedly reputable source agrees with a propagandist source on item X, it doesn't mean the reputable source is not itself polluted!) I try and not use propagandist sources unless desperate. Even then...  The main problem is that if you do cite a propagandist source you have deduced is true on X, someone else will then pick up that source and quote Y and Z as also being factual, even if not. It's rather a Pandora's box. —PētersV (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reality check potentially relevant to MILHIST/Intel: interpretation of WP:V
G'day,

This issue is actually a source of reverse POV bias in Wikipedia that is commonly know as "throwing the baby out with the bath water". The issue was fairly common in the Soviet Second World War research before Col. Glantz (rtd.) begun to publish analysis. It turned out that besides all the references to the Communist party and moral superiority of the party member in a unit there was a significant grain of truth because the material was also used for doctrinal analysis. Seemingly despite post-war German memoirs, most contemporary engagement reports from German and Soviet records largely matched each other for situational assessment if not the outcome. Glantz showed that the "Soviets" didn't lie about everything, but only presented the facts in an ideological packaging (for obvious reasons) which roughly paralleled the Germans.

The instances in Wikipedia where innate truths are thrown out because conclusive sources can't be located by the editors at the time are a plenty. My only hope is that eventually the articles will be properly sourced, and common sense will prevail.

On the subject of Vietnam, I was wondering if you can think of a way to write an article on technical intelligence during the conflict. This was and remains a subject that is less well known then the obviously more prominent aspects of the war, but remained an important part of the conflict for the Soviet and USA supporters in evaluating each other's capabilities. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

BW
I know that creating aerosols or other means of contamination in in large quantity is the problem. Furthermore troops can easily defend themselves against aerosols, especially when they see it coming, so for an effective weapon a sneaky approach is quite useful(So far I remember basic instructions on NBC warfare in the German airforce). Very aggressive or hard to detect cultures(viruses, multiresistent bacteria) could be used in boobytraps, but so far I'm not aware of any such practice except the anthrax letters a while ago.

What exactly is your problem that requires help? Wandalstouring (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to confuse you. I don't have a problem on which I need help, but I see a great deal of misinformation in Wikipedia articles, and the more people that put out correct information, the better. It particularly annoys me that there are huge conspiratorial theories about the American Type Culture Collection supplying cultures to Iraq, which are the easiest part of a BW program.


 * Toxins have been used in assassination weapons, but biological weapons really don't make sense as biological weapons. The antibiotic resistance aspect is also overdone, as with anthrax. Pneumonic anthrax, the most lethal kind, has three phases:
 * A prodrome with cold-like symptoms. Antibiotics would help only in this (and possibly the next) phase, but there's little reason to prescribe them in the absence of additional information.
 * A silent period of a few days.
 * A fulminant period that can kill in less than a day. Antibiotics won't help here, because the problem is a complex of endotoxins from bacteria already established. Fairly recently, it has been learned that anthrax kills with a combination of three proteins, and the current research frontier is being able to neutralize any of these.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey!
how's it goin? Just wondering if there are any projects or anything I can help you with.

I am currently serving the United States Navy at the moment and have knowledge on various weapons systems and the functioning of carriers,etc. I saw you do military projects, so I thought I might contact you to see if I can help you update some articles or soemthing.

ApsbaMd2 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User Boxes
Just wondering how I can add some user boxes to my user page. I'm relatively new to wikipedia, so I don't really know how I would go about adding user boxes. If you can help, I'd be most greatful!

(Like the Time zone box you have, military service, etc)

ApsbaMd2 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered on your user page, but the easiest thing is to go into edit mode when you see a page with an edit box you like, and copy the code that produces it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

CIA articles
Thanks for the message. Please deal with the material as you see best. A link or rearrangement is just fine; just thought the info should be available somewhere. I came to this via material about individual Canadians caught up in some of post-Sep 11 events, so am not as well versed as many others. Fremte (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply re. espionage article edits
Evening. I've responded to your post on my talk page, but have put it, along with your post, on the talk page to the article in question, so that anyone else interested will be able to contribute.


 *  Exemplar Sententia. 10:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA anti-terrorism
Hi Howard,

The articles on CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities and Bin Laden Issue Station seem a bit muddled in structure, especially around the issue of the 1998 CIA plan to attack bin Laden at his 100-acre farm.


 * I have been working on the first, but not the second, and apologize for it being thoroughly muddled at the moment. I've learned my lesson; when splitting off subordinate articles, I need to edit them first in userspace. As I've noted, it's under construction. I think it will flow better when I change some things from topical to chronological.


 * One thing to remember is that this article is on terrorism in general, not just Islamic terrorism or al-Qaeda. Too many people think the intelligence community involvement with terrorism started in 2001. I have a CIA report next to me, apparently part of an annual series, reviewing world terrorism in 1979.

The book Ghost Wars covers this in detail, do you have a copy?


 * No, I don't. I'll have to check if the local library has it. In general, I prefer to use reputable online sources so the reader doesn't have to pay for access to the source information.

What is highlighted in the book is the muddled chain of command and the lack of decision-making transparency and freedom of debate between the people making the plans and the decision-makers. Decision-makers higher-up didn't see the plan. People making the plan down below didn't know who the decision-makers were and how they decided.

This confusion is further evidenced in the two links National Counterterrorism Center and Counterterrorist Center. To the casual reader it is not obvious which is which, whether the Counterterrorist Center still exists, what is the command and control relationship between the two, and, again, how do the people in those functions see the decision-making process as it goes towards the top.


 * To say nothing the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the Transnational Terrorism Center in the DI, as well as the military Counterintelligence Source Protection Operations and other force protection intelligence activities. :-(

My office used to be in 7 WTC (there's a nice new one now, but I'm not in it) and I am used to seeing, in the banking world, clouds of obsfucation between people performing specific functions and higher-level decisionmakers. So based on my experience, it is a relationship that I would like to see clarified, both in the light of particular events (1998 Talek Farm or whatever it was) and current setup.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand and appreciate your concern, but perhaps you can help with what I'm trying to do in the short term, which is to get the CIA transnational terrorism to be agreed to have everything on terrorism that is in the main CIA article, and then delete most of the text there other than a wikilink to this section.


 * Your comment is useful feedback, as I may have been doing too much filling in of other material, especially dealing with overall issues of terrorism rather than al-Qaeda. I have to get out a project proposal today (I hope), so I can only give it occasional time, such as while on hold with vendors waiting for price quotes. I will have other gaps when I am waiting for the only individual in the universe who seems to know what connector is on some pieces of navigational equipment, so I can order an adapter cable. :-(


 * Serious thanks. Suggestions on focusing the immediate problem are welcome. Still, there is some improvement needed in the text, even before adding valid information like yours. For example, when a footnote turns out to have 6 different sources under it, I find it impossible to go to the source material and see what is actually being cited.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

Terrorist Threat Integration Center has been superceded by National Counterterrorism Center.


 * Unfortunately, some of the organizational changes were not smooth, and, at several times to my personal knowledge, there were competing organizations.

I can't find anything in Google or in CIA.gov for CIA DI Transnational Terrorism Center.


 * That may not be the precise name, but it's an office in the DI. Their published organization charts may not be complete.

There is a doctrine but not an office for Counterintelligence Force Protection Source Operations.


 * We're drifting away from CIA, but see Counter-intelligence. The newer doctrine classifies the category of operations, but it's unlikely you'd find a listing for other than the 9999th Military Intelligence Detachment.

There are a couple of wikilinks for force protection:
 * Force protection
 * Pentagon Force Protection Agency

There are a number of for-profit and non-profit private operations like
 * CI Centre
 * Terrorism Research Center
 * Terrorism Knowledge Base

So there is not much to add on the government side except that really the chain of command issue and the peer-level communication issues which are the two major faults identified in any analysis of September 10, 2001.


 * Again, the relationship of the intelligence community and CIA, in this article, is not limited to the September 11 attacks. The focus is on CIA and all forms of terrorism, be it Basque and right-wing Spanish, Left and Right in Turkey, LTTE, etc.


 * The main CIA article, however, was al-Qaeda centric. I think we both have additional material we'd like in the terrorism subarticle, but, given there are people currently adding new material to the terrorism section of the main article, there are updates on Bin Laden Issue Statement, etc. If we are lucky, we will have fewer places to cross-reference, although you raise a very legitimate point about the community as opposed to CIA alone -- a CIA of reduced authority, but with many prestigious function moved to ODNI.

(I.e. why we had no heads-up and no pre-emptive action.) For my own POV I would rather focus on these issues and on what is the real community responding to this (is it all private contractors?)


 * We may very well want a community, not CIA and terrorism article. For example, the FBI is the lead domestic agency. The undefined warrantless telephone surveillance program, which may focus on call detail records (CDR) rather than conversations, is under NSA. Treasury has an increasing role, although there apparently was a flap in Belgium over CIA being given access to real-time data from a financial network (SWIFT, IIRC). See the Belgium article in CIA/Russia & Europe.

and how well does it function and does it over-function (why do I need 5 documents to add my wife's married name to my bank account, even though I am an employee of said bank, or similarly to open a joint post office box)?


 * As far as the bank, I have dealt some with the security aspects there, as well as the antiterrorism material, when I was working on a book that involved regulatory details. By the time I finished talking with some very nice government people, who were still at the office at 19:30 on Friday, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Send me an email if you'd like more detail.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

I agree that there should be a community-focussed article, not a CIA article. The more I look at the current ODNI structure, it appears to be the case that CIA has effectively been disbanded or at least large chunks of it relabelled and reorganized under ODNI. So any articles on CIA are largely of historical interest only -- the new game is ODNI.

This fits with a suggestion I made somewhere along the line in our discussions -- that CIA should be relabelled as something else that people don't know the name of, so they can get on with it with a clean slate. By the power of magical thinking, that actually happened -- now, instead of CIA, we have NCTC and NCS and ODNI. And meanwhile people can keep taking potshots at the CIA while the rest of these acronyms are going on about their business.

But again, using the analogy of the mortgage crisis, what matters is who makes the decisions, how they make them, with what incentive, what are the controls on them, and how do they communicate (or not) with the people lower down who actually know how things work. The setup of an op to take bin Laden on his farm, and the side-tracking of that op, are the mortgage crisis of 1998.

The reason I focus on decision-making process is that, in my experience, the generic bank response to a crisis is to fire the most visible people that seem to have been key in making a bone-headed decision -- but not to alter the decision-making process or the controls or the lines of communication.

So for this reason I would like to see an article which is focussed on those aspects, showing before and after. I.e. what would happen differently now in the current structure, in theory, vs. what actually happened in the old structure, in practice.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Community and Related Article
Let me get this straight. Osama was a subprime lender, or he's declared jihad on subprime lenders?

No argument that things have changed radically since the ODNI. Still, there are some meaningful functions, not just the clandestine services, in CIA.

Even with the Old CIA, what was often ignored is the body that approved sensitive operations (collection and action), variously named the 303 Committee, 54/12 Group, Principals Committee, Special Group, Forty Committee, Operations Coordinating Board, Special Group (Counterinsurgency), and so forth. The name always gets rediscovered, and some changes are for the sake of change. For example, there are two basic documents that the National Security Council staff prepares: the thing gives the President the background and choices, and the thing that promulgates the changes. Just about every Administration renames these two types of document.

From my experience in the ways of the US national security community, it's almost certainly renamed, yet the function is important to know if a clandestine/covert operation is rogue or ordered. One that is ordered still might be illegal. The key decisionmaking may be above the CIA/ODNI. Indeed, this may be part of the reason there's more pushback from CIA people, given that this Administration created intelligence bypass organizations like the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.

Incidentally, when you think community, you might want to think a little more broadly, because it's been observed that there may be a legal loophole for covert action. If the CIA/NCS does it, there's a requirement for a Presidential Finding and Congressional notification. If the military special operations people do it, and I'm skimming over some legalities, it may be that there's no legal restriction on the President or Secretary of Defense ordering a Special Forces or SEAL team somewhere to do what otherwise might be done by CIA paramilitary or field collection people. Special Forces and Marine Recon, for example, can have small SIGINT and HUMINT teams attached as part of standard task-oriented mission planning.

Still, my second most immediate problem is completing the move of the terrorism sections to a new article. One of the reasons I was reorganizing the article by both background and timeline is that a timeline-oriented structure probably can accommodate both CIA and DNI. My first most immediate problem today, though, is deciding how to network among a radar, sonar, and navigational system on a real vessel. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Howard,


 * The point in Ghost Wars was that we had the boots on the ground to get OBL in 1998 and were held back by (A) the lack of an indictment, (B) the lack of some place to put him, and (C) a desire not to kill his wives and children.


 * Needless to say, 10 years later, we don't have any of those problems, because we have since decided that (A) we can hold any foreigner without an indictment, (B) we've created several of our own places to put scary foreigners, and (C) we no longer have any serious qualms about collateral damage.


 * Nevertheless, the particular problem highlighted by Ghost Wars, namely, a lack of direct communication between the boots on the ground (the Ops people with the trigger-happy and paid-up Afghanis ready to go to the farm) and the higher-ups (the West Wing bureaucrats like Richard A. Clarke). The claim in the book is that the higher-ups didn't know we had a trigger to pull and couldn't talk to the people building the trigger, while the lower-downs didn't know who wasn't pulling the trigger and couldn't talk to them to ask why.


 * So the question is simply whether that aspect of the equation has changed. (We know that that ABCs above have definitely changed.)


 * Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

L’Houssaine Kherchtou corroborates al-Fadl (one source)
"L’Houssaine Kherchtou, another former Al Qaeda member interviewed by the agency—and known to U.S. officials as Joe the Moroccan—corroborated [Jamal al-]Fadl’s claims [about the structure and intentions of al-Qaeda]." http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/11/060911fa_fact "Junior: The clandestine life of America’s top Al Qaeda source", New Yorker, issue of Sept. 11, 2006.

Frank Freeman (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"A National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism in 1997 had only briefly mentioned Bin Ladin"
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm 9/11 Commission Report., chapter 4  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Freeman (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is NCS not in US Intelligence Community?
What do you think of recent edit


 * SECDEF and NCS are not among the sixteen members; NCS reports to DCIA; SECDEF is a person, not a member agency)

by PNoble to United States Intelligence Community?

I know this is all counting angels on the head of a pin, but I think the org charts have changed and PNoble's view might be outdated. My impression is that NCS is promoted to a level of independence equal to NRO.

See also his entry in List of intelligence agencies for United States which doesn't list NCS.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the NCS is still part of the CIA, though it's been given the lead in the HUMINT collection mission across the intelligence community. It is not an agency by itself, nor a separate member of the intelligence community.  --Folic_Acid 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IC vs. matrix view
While it isn't as much oriented to organization, it's not uncommon to see, in the more specialized literature, a matrix organization, which includes some interagency teams. Perhaps this should go into the IC article, but it is complex. For example, while NRO satellites and other assets collect IMINT, SIGINT, and MASINT, the initial data reduction takes place in NGA, NRO, and DIA (and military components). The reduced data then goes to the analysts

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Howard - I like the look of this! However, if you don't mind a couple of suggestions, I've tweaked your matrix a little.  For the most part, I've added DIA as a collector and processor.  The ODNI doesn't really do much in the way of processing raw intelligence, while the DIA does.  Also, I noticed that there's no mention of collection from the various military branches - was that intentional? --Folic_Acid 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply on my page (I'm happy to continue the conversation here, so that we don't have to jump back and forth - I have your talk page on watch). I guess my point about the military branches collection is more in reference to MASINT collection (as in Cobra Judy and Cobra Ball).  Those are operated by the military, and in the interests of thoroughness, it might be worthwhile including them.  Regarding the OSINT, I changed the name from the ODNI Open Source Enterprise to the more specific Open Source Center (which is the actual agency that conducts open source collection and analysis).  Anyway. I like the look of it, and I think it'll be very useful for others to get a quick grasp of who in the IC does what.  --Folic_Acid 19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand some of the horse-trading that went on regarding HUMINT, the Defense HUMINT Service moved into NCS. There were several sops, however, to Rumsfeld. Counterintelligence source force protection HUMINT was considered closely coupled to forces and needed to stay where it was, liaising as appropriate with NCS. Also, whatever-ISA-is-now-called and probably some other HUMINT assets specific to SOCOM still are there, and an interesting legal loophole surfaced. While assorted CIA covert and clandestine operations require a Presidential Finding and reporting to at least the "Big 8" in Congress, it is being interpreted that doesn't always apply to USSOCOM. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that Defense HUMINT is still a part of DOD/DIA. The DIA still has the Directorate of Human Intelligence (DH), which oversees the DIA HUMINT collection efforts, primarily through the Defense Attache system.  I think that while the DH does the actual collection and processing of Defense HUMINT, the DHMO (Defense HUMINT Management Office) under the Undersecretary of Defense for Intellingece oversees and provides strategic direction on the collection of all Defense HUMINT (including whatever's collected by the actual military services).  As for the SOCOM stuff specifically, I'm not really sure about that.  Sounds interesting, though!  --Folic_Acid 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Several sources have said DHS is no longer, at least in terms of DIA running its own HUMINT operations other than attaches and the like. Rumsfeld demanded and got some additional SOCOM authority as a result, and the force protection, after things like the 1983 Beirut bombing, is something everyone seems to agree needs to be with combatant commanders. Interestingly, even the term counterintelligence force protection source operations now gets pointed to a classified manual, but the previous unclassified counterintelligence JP or FM (I forget) defined it, and I doubt it got redefined. I suspect that the reason for the additional security is not so much the enemy as that host nations might get upset to learn that the US military cultivates its own sources, especially in police organizations. When I heard that, I was shocked! Why, it's as shocking as finding gambling in Rick's Cafe! (Play it again, Sam).

Seriously, do you have a current reference that even shows DH in DIA? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure - here you go (down on the lower left). There's also this.  I apologize if I'm coming across as a know-it-all or some such - that's not my intention at all.  I'm just glad that someone's interested (in an objective academic way) in properly categorizing and explaining the intelligence community, and I'd like to help however I can.  :)  --Folic_Acid 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem -- I'm just trying to reconcile this with other reports. The date on the first chart does make sense, but weird things have happened in intelligence because something looked reasonable. One of my favorite stories, which I am not making up, is when the IC went into great spinning circles when they looked at the picture of the Soviet leadership watching the May Day parade. As you probably know, the position in relation to the General Secretary showed status. Everything seemed to have changed, and many intelligence collection requests went out before one sharp-eyed analyst said "wait a minute. Khruschev's mole is on the wrong side. Could we be looking at a print from a negative accidentally reversed in printing?"


 * If you'd be interested, I started trying to improve TECHINT when there was some storm and fury about the Farewell Dossier. When I started, TECHINT was purely aimed at tactical military levels, and was fine. Farewell brought in the strategic STINFO level, which led to economic intelligence, about which I know little. At this point, I recognize the article is confused, and I don't know if TECHINT and STINFO can work in the same article -- logically, they should, as they deal with similar subjects at different levels of granularity. This same issue comes up in the IC matrix, given CIA and DIA have some STINFO charters distinct from TECHINT. AFAIK, medical intelligence is still an Army responsibility, with people detailed from the other services.


 * Please feel welcome to try to clean up that article. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Logistics dept
This is now up and running. Any areas defective? And improvements you can think of? And areas you can sign up to? Does it remain "magnifique" or has it becomes diluted in the execution. Comments, suggestions, if you have time would be welcome here. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Enormously helpful, especially sources. Did my first quick copy edit as a result of your creating this. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good! If you think of anything to add, DO mention it. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Might want to think of cross-referencing essays and logistics, or linking them in some other way. For example, the essay on declassified documents is about sourcing.


 * Thinking out loud, without any real idea how to do it, I wonder if there is a way to pull together MILHIST citations into some kind of data base, to standardize citing and the like. Getting outside logistics, there's a continuing problem, especially in intelligence, of stub articles. The most minimal stub articles often are useful placeholders, but I sense there is a class of somewhat longer stubs that tend to be POV on some specific point, which really could be in a better context in a broader article. In like manner, perhaps there needs to be essays on splitting -- the first round of CIA sub-articles, especially the geographic ones, are themselves becoming too large.


 * There are other sources that would be relevant. On the academic side, Questia would be one. My budget has forced me to drop my engineering professional memberships, which are sometimes useful in articles on technologies. Another area is that what used to be the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (Now in the national open source center) was free to some universities but prohibitive through an information broker. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

SIOP
Hello! Indeed very much improved. Perhaps a few more citations might be necessary where estimates and other figures are presented - as a rule, anything that might be challenged ought to be referenced. For the article to pass B-class, it should contain adequate references in every section. A couple more in "Implementation" (on SIOP use, and on the numbers of targets), "History" (3rd to 5th paragraphs) and the UK role, and it will be OK. As for content, there is currently, AFAIK, no article on overall US nuclear warfare doctrine (perhaps you could write one?). A separate, very small, article exists for Dropshot, but I think that the SIOP article should in any case provide more context, and certainly make some reference to similar US, Allied or Soviet concepts, and the impact that technological evolution had on doctrine. However, other plans and concepts should, as far as possible, have dedicated articles. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. You might also want to include some images and diagrams. It goes a long way to improve the overall look & readability of the article. Great work so far in adding to the article! Cplakidas (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Generals
I read your posts, and it might be interesting to write an article on those two. I'm not opposed to articles on one star flag officers, I just think the burden of proof for notability is greater. And as you get lower on the rank scale, the notability burden of proof for the article creator becomes greater. Noel Parrish has an official bio from the Air Force and a portrait photo here, collections of papers on government sites, even an article in American Heritage magazine. Having read some of what is there, I would say go ahead and create an article - I think there is enough notability to survive an afd if somebody nominates it. Ben Wyatt, on the other hand, might take some deeper digging for sources.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Counter-terrorism
I would like to thank you for your great work on the article. I think we might have gotten off on the wrong foot but after your efforts I am certain we looked past that. My respects to you for your cool editing and great knowledge about the topic. Again thanks and great work. Keep up the Great work ! Watchdogb (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (copied to Watchdogb's page) It wound up being a very informative exchange. I'm reminded of Clemenceau's suggestion that war is too important to be left to the generals, although I'm not sure if Stockwell Day is an improvement. :-)


 * The Military History Project has started a series of non-encyclopedic essays to guide editors in the field, and this discussion brought home that some terms of art that are quite well understood in the professional military literature have been thoroughly confused by the evil twins of politicians and sound-bite journalists. I'm trying to generalize the idea of tactic, countertactic, and antitactic, which applies to more than terror. Terrorism is more emotional than many areas, although I still remember when nuclear annihilation was a very real concern, crouched under my school desk during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the idea of "anti-" versus "counter-" defense was a valid distinction. Not to be able to make that distinction, I'm afraid, spills into the important distinction between preventive war (usually bad) and preemptive war (sometimes warranted). Too much journalism mixes up prevention and preemption, which are quite different ideas.


 * I've written an article on Foreign Internal Defense, which really needs to split into material on theories of insurgency and tactics of defense against insurgent methods -- which may or may not include terrorism. Some of the models of why insurgency breaks out, with odd names like McCormick's Magic Diamond, Kilcullen's Three Pillars, etc., may be useful in discussing the political aspect of warfare, especially what triggers civil wars and the like. 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Work!
Hi Howard,

My name is Lauren and I work in Intelligence for the DoD. I haven't been able to read all of the information that you have contributed to Intel articles here on Wikipedia but what I have read I have found to be very accurate. I wanted to congratulate you on that! I need to caveat what I am about to say with this, I have yet to find anything that you have written that could be considered this. However, I know that when writing about Intelligence and specifically US Intelligence sometimes the lines of OPSEC (operations security) can very easily be blurred. So, my underlying point is, please be extremely careful when writing articles about US Intelligence that the public domain has access to. Again, like I said before, I have yet to see any of your writings cross that line of OPSEC and I am very impressed by the accuracy of the articles you have written! Keep up the good work and I look forward to reading more! –Sashall08 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will also try to copy this to a talk page for you.


 * I'm sensitive to the issues you raise. There are times when I find the claim of OPSEC used for reasons that are really political/bureaucratic, times when it's the default to Never Say Anything, and times when it is extremely relevant. This just came up in an odd way; I'm doing some work in computers and electronics for commercial fishing vessels. Someone started putting Automatic Identification System data on the Web. AIS is rather like the air traffic control collision avoidance systems, with the intention that it covers a local area. The websites that were collecting this from multiple areas were getting into OPSEC, as they were creating a database that showed vessel tracking information that would be ideal for hijacking and piracy.  I just frightened myself realizing it was 1970 when I worked on a US Navy system for movement reporting, which gave far, far less data than AIS, but was still (properly) SECRET.


 * If you haven't done so, feel free to check my userpage, User:HcberkowitzHoward C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Howard,


 * I told you those spooks were scary!


 * Just remember any secrecy agreement you signed is good for life, and has some scary clauses in it.


 * Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Howard, Re: Secrecy agreements: The New Testament tells US that the Pharisees are quoted as saying to the dissident Rabbi, "why are you speaking of these things and you are not yet 50." I hope to find that you are interested in contemporary indications that such secretion exists and are relevant to the US Military. Respectfully, John ShoemakerJohnshoemaker (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but what do the Pharisees and the New Testament have to do with secrecy agreements, especially since I was speaking, in general terms, of documents from 1967 to about 1971 that automatically became declassified and releasable in 3 years? We are not talking of SCI materials here, but tactical documents, much of which are published in official histories. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could the Rosicrucians have something to do with this? If not them, then certainly the Masons. In any event, maybe NSA 101 just needs to be annotated with citations showing that all the techniques and organization discussed are available in declassified public documents.

On the other hand, could a particular assembly of un-secret things be secret by virtue of its assembly? Isn't this the pragmatic OSINT question?

You will never be entirely safe from worry when writing about these topics, I'm afraid. This is the basic hall of mirrors effect.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Illuminati, and, without question, the Council on Foreign Relations are more likely. Indeed, I was reading a CFR document -- in its physical and presumably enchanted form -- just last night.


 * To answer your OSINT question, I am pleased, as a cat lover, to replace Schrodinger's Cat with Schrodinger's Document Classification. Unless the individual doing the OSINT happens to have original classification authority, and no classified materials was used, the document, which we shall assume is in the former cat box, is either classified or unclassified, depending on whether an appropriate elementary particle from a person with original classification authority passes into the box and ionizes the document with secrecy -- or does not.


 * For an infinity of mirrors, assume an infinite number of cans of spray paint.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest a few examples: There's no cat involved here. In both examples, there are serious practical consequences, for which common sense should be applied.
 * 1) The Las Vegas ricin guy says his brother cooked it up, presumably from recipes available on the Internet or at your local bookstore. The recipe I think (I haven't looked it up) involves basic ingredients available to and usable by guys just smart enough to sleep with bottles of the stuff in their motel rooms.  Should the recipe be effectively classified, and should it be against the law to publish it?  I think so.
 * 2) Philip Agee published a lot of names of serving CIA officers.  NameBase specializes in linking those names into related networks -- go to their website and they'll draw you a picture.  Books like Ghost Wars quote a lot of previously serving CIA officers by name.  Outfits like CI Centre have lists of lecturers who are former CIA officers.  The phone companies make phonebooks available online e.g. Superpages.  All of this is public domain.  If I intersect the phone book with the list of names, I get a probably substantial catalog of current home addresses and phone numbers of people who have fairly recently served as CIA officers and probably still have in their retirement years some work connected with that industry.  Should the synthesis (phone book intersected with lists of names) be public domain?  Again, I don't think so: I think that work product should be classified.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Several points here, but the core principles include that it's often fruitless to classify basic science, that there is an increasing awareness that war with a sophisticated enemy approaches a game-theoretic environment of perfect information, and yes, there are things that should be classified, but not reflexively. The most critical secret of nuclear weapons was declassified at Hiroshima.


 * Without knowing the details of the LV ricin case, and I'm saying this without using any references other than in my head, there are two levels of preparation of ricin. One is fairly crude and simple. The other requires some knowledge of biochemical lab procedures, but doesn't take fantastic resources, assuming you know what you are doing. Again from memory, I knew biochemical-purity ways to prepare high-quality ricin by the late 1960s, by looking in strange and often unsuspected resources called bound scientific journals.


 * There are some difficult calls about the benefits versus the risks of releasing certain information. I can't think of a better example than the research that identified the specific molecular variants that made the "Spanish flu", which almost certainly originated in the US, so lethal. It was well known that it was the common H1N1 immunologic type, but the reason it killed so quickly was not known.  There was extensive discussion before publishing the information, balancing between having a greater number of researchers associated with the Bright Side of the Force trying to develop treatments, and an unknown but presumably nonzero number of people interested in bioterror getting critical information. The decision was made to publish, and I would observe that bioterror is harder than many believe. In Japan, the Aum cult tried and failed, on two occasions, to deliver anthrax attacks. They were well funded and had graduate scientists, but not certain specific techniques that tend to be the things learned only in large-scale biological warfare programs. They prepared impure sarin, but didn't seem to understand anything about dissemination -- and there are aspects to nerve agent dissemination that also aren't intuitive.


 * I am quite careful about what I will and will not post, and there certainly are things, some of which may be completely unclassified, that I consider irresponsible to publish. There are other things where it can be safe to publish all but the very obscure yet critical details. Note that the Advanced Encryption System was not developed by NSA, but by Belgians, yet is approved for TOP SECRET with NSA-provided keys. There are times when OPSEC is very valid, and there are other cases where it is security theater.


 * Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen security theater: Cops in New York City go around in caravans of literally 100 patrol cars with their lights flashing. They do this on a regular basis for a half an hour or so, usually in the afternoons. I'm sure that would scare away a Saudi with a panel truck full of fertilizer, if there were any around left to notice. Another form of security theater is those concrete planters they used to put in front of buildings, post-9/11. I think people have since decided that the planters aren't really going to make much difference. Also I notice that people have more or less stopped X-raying the handbags of visitors in corporate lobbies.

Anyway I'll leave you to your Rosicrucians because you're clearly not worried about the friendly but frowning WAC from the Pentagon.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA page :- "Al Qaeda and war on terror" section
The content I put up over the last couple of days is less than half the length of my original contribution. I can abbreviate it further, but it will take time. I think we agree that there should be general summaries of each topic on the main page.

Frank Freeman (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with the idea of having summaries, with the details wikilinked. Perhaps the only thing that is not clear between us is the definition of "topic".  For example, the basic blowback problem, the CTC, the Bin Laden virtual station are all legitimate topics, but I'd hate, for space reasons, to have more than a couple of sentences on each on the main page. The topics can, of course, have Topic # Subtopic links to the transnational and possibly country articles.


 * You have good material that enriches the content of the transnational terrorism article. I didn't delete any of your content that I moved; I only broke it up to fit the chronology. You'll see that I marked your material with temporary headings -- either of us can do merges.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Special reconnaissance article
I'm pretty sure all the Force Recon units are now apart of the MSOB units. Thats the reason I deleted that part, but if that is incorrect go ahead and revert it. Outdawg (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

re: CIA activities
Howard, I don't understand what type of clarification you want me to provide... Are you suggesting that we move the CIA-related content from Saddam Hussein - United States relations to CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia? If so, in my opinion, the CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia is really lengthy, and kinda difficult to read, putting all the related information in the Saddam article presents better information about him. Imad marie (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I understood from you, you have three concerns:
 * Redundant information. Well maybe that is OK, Saddam Hussein - United States relations concentrates on the character of Saddam, while CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia concentrates on the CIA, both of the articles are presenting information from different angles. It's true that we have redundant information but I don't see a solution for this. Also we have the U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war article that presents redundant information from a different angle.
 * Lengthy CIA article: maybe we need to rename the article to CIA activities, and create the sub articles: CIA activities in the Middle East, in North Africa, etc...
 * The way to find information: those are sub article, the only way to get to them is by their main articles: Saddam Hussein and the CIA article.


 * I hope I got your points correctly, please share any further thoughts you have, Imad marie (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Howard, I'm not an active editor of CIA related articles, but I have to ask, why is there not a centralized article that links to all the articles that are related to CIA activities: CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific, CIA activities in Africa, CIA activities in the Americas, CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia, CIA activities in Russia and Europe or any other related article that I'm not aware of. And maybe you can have a visual presentation of this centralized article. Imad marie (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The hidden links in the CIA article makes it very difficult for the user to find and navigate to, here is what I suggest, create a new article, call it CIA activities or CIA geographic activities. And within this article you can link to all the sub-geographic-articles. You can do something graphically presented, like use an image like the one here, and use the location map template, something like that.
 * I am interested in middle-east and Islam related articles. Imad marie (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can create a test new article at your user space first, and I will help you construct it if you wish. Imad marie (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As a serious neutral political editor, what do you think of the discussion going on here? Are UN resolutions not important to declare a territory occupied? Imad marie (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence cycle management
I would happy to work together on this. I'll re-read it first too. I left a comment after yours on the talk page. Thanks! 07:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

France support to Iraq
Hello Howard, What is the link to the sandbox article about France support to Iraq that you are building? can I have a look? Imad marie (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Slade Cutter Review
The article would be B-class but I think it needs at least one cit in the 'First wartime assignment, first "down-the-throat" shot' section and another cit in the top half of the 'USS Seahorse' section. Hope that helps. Kyriakos (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Tell me when your done and I'll re-assess it. Kyriakos (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reassessed. Kyriakos (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cooperation
Please feel free to join the WP:DM project. There are plenty of open tasks. As for Clandestine HUMINT and Covert Action, I like the changes that you did to the intro. I would, however, prefer to include the article title in the first sentence in bold - as per WP:MOS. At the same time, I do realise that it is cumbersome considering the current article title. BTW, I like your matrix on US Intelligence agencies. I miss the USGS in the strategic Geophysical MASINT for nuclear testing. --  rxnd  ( talk ) 06:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Italian support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
Actually, I meant tone. Thanks for telling me. asenine t/c 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I may be using the wrong tag again, for the life of me I cannot think of one which would be more appropriate. What I mean is that some of the content seems a little oddly written for an encyclopaedia. In places it sounds a lot more like a news article than an encyclopaedic entry. If you wish to remove the tags, please do feel free, but I still feel it applies. Have a nice day! :) asenine t/c 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

cooperation proposal: Irano- American Détente
dear berkowitz, as I saw you were too concenred, about the image of USA, and accused me that I blame everything on USA, I do this proposal to you as the first one, in order to see my good will. I propose to write an article about the Irano- American Détente (roughly 1997-2001) during the presidency of Khatami and Clinton. There were even Friendly soccer matches and some "friendly" pictures. Your suggestions are welcome.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll copy this to your user page, but I would suggest that a serious proposal could be useful on the main Iran-Iraq War talk page, where we can have continuity and other people commenting. If you approve, you can move it there, or give me permission to do so; it would be discourteous for me to do that without your agreement.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "image of USA", in that I was talking about the war period, not 1997-2001. In that period, I have not yet seen evidence of large-scale military cooperation between the US and Iraq, although I agree there was intelligence sharing by a relatively small DIA detachment.


 * Can we agree that the "Tanker War" was effectively a war between Iran and the US, and the motivations on both sides were for things about which each side was angry, as opposed to (at least on the US side), a principal goal of supporting Iraq? There are things the US did that, I am sure, ranged from infuriating to, in the case of the Airbus, criminal. At the same time, there were things that Iran did that caused a great deal of anger and high-level government reaction in the U.S. Perhaps the war could have been prevented or stopped early with a mutually trusted mediator, but that didn't happen.


 * Please believe me when I say that I have a long list of reasons, policy and personal, why I would like the relationship between the US and Iran to improve. I have great respect for Persian history and tradition. Realistically, you are a major power in the region and should be treated as such. A couple of years ago, I consulted on a study of radio broadcasting to Afghanistan, and was impressed with the positive, nonconfrontational material that Radio Iran transmitted. If I may make a personal observation, your rice dishes are the best in the world, which I've tried to reproduce with cookbooks that aren't detailed enough.


 * I am interested in serious discussion of steps to improve the relationship, and, indeed, documenting cases where overtures by either side were rejected. These range, certainly, from increased trade opportunities to earthquake relief to antidrug activity. It is not my intent to deal with cosmetic-only aspects of better relations, although I recognize that the table tennis team from the PRC had a surprisingly significant effect on improving dialogue, leading to high-level and serious government cooperation.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello I was talking about another article. (detente) not that about the Iran-Iraq war (I said there that both parties had their persepctives on the Tanker war, and these persepctives could be mentioned in the article). That period of history is now gone. After the war with Saddam, Irano-American relations improved, with its peak in the 1997-2001 period. however when Bush assumed power the relations worsened again. You are talking as if I am the represenatative of the Iranian government. In fact I am only a member of Iranian diaspora. Actually the ordinary Iranians, and especially the diapora is exposed to the Iranophobia, and not the Iranian government. Movies like 300 or not without my daughter target the Iranian pcitizens, and espcially those in diapora are exposed to discrimnation and hrassment. During the period I call detente the relations between the two nations, at least the Iranian side was cordial. American athletes came regularly to Iran. American wrestelers were applauded etc... However the Bush administration again fell in a state of Iranophobia, that angered Iranians. For example arresting Iranian scholars who were attending a conference and beating them up was unexcusable. Also instigating ethnic and religious hatred in Iran by some American neoconservative groups, adds to the controversy. As M. Albright recently said in her interview with the VOA Persian, Iran and the USA are large countries with similar global interests and this only adds to the prospects of better relations. But this only can happen based on mutual respects. However I am open to any suggestions how to improve this relationship. I would suggest let's begin with those "cosmetic" articles in wikipedia. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly believe an article that documents, objectively, recent steps -- and failures -- in improving relations. Believe me, I, as well as many Americans, are counting the days until Bush and Cheney leave office. The hate groups, on either side, need to be identified. I understand the difference between the Iranian Supreme Leader and President, but many Americans do not. Some years ago, Khruschev made a comment that apparently was translated poorly as "We will bury you", which sounds threatening to the average American. My Russian linguist friends have told me he was using an idiom that better translated as "Our society is better will live longer than yours, and we will watch you being buried". Not speaking Farsi, I can't judge some statements made by Ahmadinejad, but some US specialists say that a number of his statements were translated poorly, and were used to spread fear about an essentially nonexistent Iranian nuclear threat.


 * My only concern is that any article that only covers cosmetics at first should mention that explicitly in the introduction, and indicate the article will cover more substantive relations as they occur.


 * You mentioned 300 as directed at citizens. I haven't seen the movie, but am familiar with the Battle of Thermopylae. Are you suggesting that this was consciously anti-Iranian propaganda? I'm honestly interested to know if something about events so long ago are seriously considered derogatory. Your culture is older than ours, but, for example, a movie about the actions of one side of the American Civil War is not considered to be an attack on the North or South (as relevant). Is this not the case in Iraq??


 * I would also be very interested in knowing the Iranian perspective on assistance after earthquakes. My impression was that it was rejected, but the situation may have been more complex than reported here. It's been my observation that help in disasters tends to be remembered positively. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not aware that Ahmadinejad has ever done deregatory comments about the american nation. Some stupids in Iran may do, but their numbers are far less than those Americans with weired ideas about Iranians. About the 300 see the review written by Kaveh farrokh, available at wikipedia. If you serach youtube you can find commentaries also made by greeks, who hate this movie. Of course the (objective or false) history of that recent past doe not matter much, but the Iranians are misreprsented. I saw even in youtube one commentary which showed that the face of persian musican was made like goat, a symbol for devil, baalzebub, Lucifer! Also the persian soldiers were made like Barbarians. It was funny that the makers  rather used black people than Iranians. Why? Well I guess it says something about the hidden racism in the movie director. If you aske. Yes the movie was a conscious attempt to make Iranians angry. About the article: begin with a suggestion, you can use an intro from the main Iran-USA relations, then we write the article about detente and add it to the main article--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)well the movie was made in Hollywood, it is not difficult to know who did the funding. As I know there are many groups who are lobbying and funding anti-Iranianism. It is a long story. I think detente is a good word, because apparently the government (without direct diplomatic relaions) were facilitating these things. In an interview Khatami spoke of his intentions in expanding sportive, scientific, tourist etc... relationship with the USA.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to anser: First there were large anger among the Iranian diaspora, and then it went also in Iran. the government joint the people and there were demonstrations as I know.(Im not sure) but it was a large issue and occupied the broadcasting and press inside Iran and among diapoa. there was also a petition against the movie.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that a fair number of Hollywood studios are owned either by large US conglomerates or Japanese firms, no, it's not easy to guess who made the movie. It's also hard for many other cultures to understand that there is very little control over things called "art". Now, I personally do not believe the government should be in the business of subsidizing the arts, but that isn't meant as a means of censorship. Some years ago, there was anger that a particular artist, partially supported by National Endowment for the Arts funding, created something he called "Piss Christ", a crucifix in a jar of his urine. Yes, there were protests, but, in a country that is largely Christian, no particular violence. Routinely, there are movies, books, etc., that are offensive to one group or another, and I believe it a strength of our society that, overall, there is plenty of opportunity to protest peacefully, and, when it is a commercial effort such as a movie, send an economic message. The government, however, cannot and should not ban a movie because it offends some group; that attitude reflects a widely held national appreciation for freedom of expression -- and freedom to protest against other peoples' expression. The movie may have been a large issue in Iran, but both cultures, to live together, have to recognize that they do have different values that fit their societies, and they are not going to make fundamental changes in each other.


 * With all due respect, there are Americans that know and respect your culture going back to antiquity. There are Americans that are aware of things such as the overthrow of Mossadegh, consider it a terrible idea, but also understand the US context that led to it happening. One of the reasons Bush is so unpopular is that he is regularly doing things that other Administrations considered, to different extents, unwise. At the same time, Iranians need to understand that there are things that caused very deep popular resentment to Iran. Whether Iranians felt justified or not by the US admitting the Shah for medical treatment, rather than returning him for trial, the Embassy seizure remains a source of anger. I recognize that all of Iran didn't decide to do that, nor did the average Iranian take part in mining the Gulf. Nevertheless, I hear a certain sensitivity on some Iranians' part that the fault for bad relations is totally on the US side, and that doesn't contribute to solving the problems.


 * Iran, I believe, has done some positive things for Afghanistan, which are subtle enough that they were not recognized by nonspecialists. That's unfortunate. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Berkowitz, no one claims that there are no people in Iran who are guilty. there are certainly people who work hard in order to isolate Iran from within. Traditionally Iranian anger was directed towards the Arabs and the British who supported them. the USA however joint the list after the coup against Mosadegh. But as I said things happened in the history and can be settled peacefully. These are not necessarily barriers towards improving relations. there are a lot of irresponsible polticians in Iran but Bush is ceratainly not better if not worse. There are certain sensetivities in  each country, which shouldbe dealt carefully in he international relationships. For example calling the Persian Gulf as Arabian Gulf or simply as Gulf will anger Iranians. Messing with the Iranian history does the same. This sensetivity is present in all historic nations, e.g. Egypt, Greece, China etc...
 * Another thing is insulting. Making 300 has nothing to do with different values within the American and the Iranian societies and cultures. Honestly I think that Iranian and American values and cultures have much more in common than Iranian with the North European or Asian ones. But I do not think that insulting Iranians in these movies is part of the American culture. On the other hand racist or anti-semitic movies are taken measures at in the USA. The anti-Iranianism however, comparable in nature and extent with the European Anti-semitism in and before the WOII, is left free, in fact many Media and press are fueling it. For example Khatami (Im not a big fan of him either) said that he doesnt want to hear death to America or burning the American flags, in Iran also were large commomemorations and sympathy with the victims of 9/11 (even Ahmadinejad wanted to visit the site but was prevented by allegedly zionist lobby groups in the USA), such gestures are not made by American politicians and certainly not by Bush.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This dialogue may be interesting and worthwhile, as I think arguments over articles may be less tense if editors know one another a little better, both as individuals, citizens of a country, and members of a culture. Some acts by Americans, which seem insensitive, may be more of ignorance of a culture and a national history. Now, I was in high school over forty years ago, but I think my school was typical in that "world history" was a single course, taught to 14-year olds. There was brief mention of ancient cultures, but, even in my honors section, no in-depth study unless you picked the topic as your research paper of the year. Mine happened to be on the first Russian Revolution under Kerensky. In the course, there was very little discussion of Persia, although a bit on the Greek city-states' side of the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis.


 * My point here is that unless they have done further study, it's unlikely that an average American knows much about ancient cultures. They probably know the most about Greek and Roman civilizations, and about other countries of the time simply as opponents. "Messing with the history" happens for two reasons, the prime one being lack of knowledge. In some cases, it's that something isn't regarded as serious disrespect, but as humor. Mel Brooks is considered a comic genius, because movies like Blazing Saddles equally insult almost every culture in America of the time, yet the climax involves the affected people setting aside their hatreds and working together.


 * In modern history, average Americans will know there was an Iran-Iraq War, the seizure of the Embassy, and little more than there were people named Reza Pahlavi and Ruhollah Khomeini. Like it or not, the way to get more work together is for both sides to reduce the heat of disagreements. Now, I have technical knowledge of the antiaircraft system of U.S. Navy warships. In reading the declassified part of the report of the Airbus incident investigation by Admiral Fogarty, which, by all accounts, is very fair but has never been completely released, I kept muttering with disbelief, they did what? There were numerous mistakes in interpreting and using information system, principally by the captain but by others as well.


 * Bluntly, in the popular American culture, when someone thinks of Iran, they immediately think of hostages. Unfortunately, that led to things such as not hearing the very real sympathy on 9/11.


 * The political role of Zionism in U.S. politics is extremely complex. There's no question that the Zionist lobby is a powerful one and has an effect on politics, and that is a disproportionate one. On the other hand, that influence is principally political. There is no vast Jewish conspiracy running the United States, and there is no control, from any lobby or ethnic group, that decides what movies are acceptable. A German officer once said "War is chaos. The reasons the Americans are so good at it is that they practice chaos every day." Anyone trying to understand America has to realize that relatively few Americans have or use a deep historical culture. They react to recent events and look to the future.  Recently, there has been a political party, partially rejected in the 2006 Congressional elections, that has had an aggressive stance toward Southwest Asia and the Middle East. I suspect that the rejection of some of their policies will open up an opportunity for rapprochement with Iran, but both sides are going to have to disregard the extreme statements of their extremists, and focus on the core issue.


 * From my perspective, the focus on core issues is the main reason for difficulty in the Iran-Iraq articles. As you know, I started inserting articles on support by many countries for Iraq and Iran, and, as you suggested, gave brief introductions to the link. Last night, I reverted an edit to the introduction to the link to U.S. support for Iraq, because that editor wanted to insert more charges against the U.S. I believe the place for that is in the sub-article, where they can be discussed at length. There is an unfortunate tendency for some editors to insert anti-American comments whenever there is a reference to the U.S., and the actual subject of the Iran-Iraq War is being lost over arguments over the U.S.


 * It may be hard, but all sides need to turn down the rhetoric, and also not focus on trivia. The infobox is a major example of conflict that is not helping explain what actually happened among the nations involved. As I commented on the talk page, the actual numbers of tanks and aircraft is far less important than the way the sides used them.


 * I hope we can work together constructively, not making either side good or evil -- Bush's "Axis of Evil" is something that goes against every rule of effetive international relations -- and focusing on understanding what happened and why. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * just see who give the Americans a bad name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.89.104.154, one of the many. He evenly calls Kazakhstan an Arabic country. btw talking about the film industry Borat is mentioned. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Borat case was the other way around? yes.... --Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't watch the Borat movie because I was disgusted with everything I knew about its production. On the other hand, with all due respect, do you understand that American traditions of freedom of expression -- not always respected by politicians -- allow disgusting things to be made, and, perhaps not as strongly as the Danes, object to censorship? You keep mentioning American ignorance about Iran, but is it possible there is ignorance in both directions, about customs and traditions that are fundamentally different and are not likely to become the same? Think of the range of religions in the US, and by no means the Christians have one position. Having a religious supreme leader would be horrible in our culture but seems to work in yours. I despise the Nazis, but I am very proud that, years ago, our system tolerated them handing out leaflets at a street corner, where I confronted them and turned them into objects of ridicule.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by Borat being the other way around -- a stupid American in Kazakhstan? There have been any number of movies about stupid Americans, some comedic and some sad. Our Constitution guarantees two separate rights: freedom of expression, and freedom of the press (interpreted to cover new media). It guarantees freedom of religion, but, with each of these rights, there are limits -- no human sacrifice, and no right for me to compel my views to be printed on someone else's press.


 * Now, you speak about Americans who are ignorant of Iran. There are countries about which I am more of an expert, but I hope we agree that I know something of your history, culture, economics, and military, and also some of the principles of Shi'a Islam? Am I neutralized because another American is a fool? Is an Iranian who is unaware of Anthony Comstock or Allen Dulles not qualified to be in a discussion? How well do I need to know the 20th century history of modern Iran, especially the earlier part that clearly was colonialism imposed on an ancient culture, the Western concern with a Russian invasion of Iran, and the Islamic revolution? Must I approve of every decision made on either side?


 * I suggest we both have things to learn about one another's country, and to keep attacking one, possibly without understanding the cultural and legal reasons the country does something, is not productive even in agreeing on the political context that led to actions in conflict. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not condemnation. Are you willing to work together, in a spirit of cooperation, on an article that is as accurate as possible, or is it more important to complain that America makes offensive movies? Changing subjects, I happen to have a deep knowledge of medicine.  There are times, however, when I will recognize I don't understand something and ask the relevant physician to explain, although we have agreed that he or she will talk to me as a colleague. There are also cases where I know a recommendation is wrong, and I have no hesitation to say why. Is there a reason we can't be having such a discussion, rather than one that lets people vent their anger?


 * In my userspace, I have a draft of a newer version of User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war as well as one of User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-British support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. I'm finding financial transactions and export control manipulations that cross back and forth between the two. I would appreciate comments on their talk pages, understanding that these are not yet ready for full publication (it would help if I had someone working with me with access to a British library). Neither article whitewashes the country, but they also show a good deal of Iraqi manipulation that was not immediately recognized. There is a mainspace article on Italian support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war that discusses the very complex banking scandal that involved the U.S. and Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Britain. I propose that when the article on U.S. support is finished, it replace the one now in mainspace; I don't think you'll find anything significant that went away, but a good deal more context and investigations made available. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the approach "we Americans"vs. ÿou Iranians" (which you often imply) is not productive, and is also against the American values of liberalism and individualism. I have never said that the religious leader"works well in Iranian politics. Nor can you hear that from many Iranians. What I said that there are certain individuals whose actions are giving a bad name to Americans. I did not say all Americans are like this, but I should say that their numbers are not low. While racial discrimination and anti-semitism is prohibited in the USA, insulting and hatred towards other ethnic groups and culture, notably Iranophobia is structural. And their lobby in the Hollywood is much greater than what you think. The movie not without my Daughter was largely filmed in israel!  Tell me this what will happen in the USA if one makes n anti-semitic movie? Yes here you see the double standard with regard to the Borat and Iranophobic movies.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When you suggest there is a "lobby" in Hollywood that, presumably, America must suppress before there can be good relations with Iran, it does sound as if you are suggesting us vs. them, because there is no way, in the US system, to suppress movies because they offend someone. Mel Gibson's radical Christian, and thoroughly anti-Semitic, movie deeply offended many Americans, but suppression wasn't a possibility. It was anti-Semitic, and it wasn't suppressed, nor should it have been.


 * You are incorrect that anti-Semitism or racial discrimination are prohibited in all ways. They certainly are not prohibited in terms of the arts or literature. They are prohibited in terms of employment, housing, and similar financial transactions.


 * Many Americans, including myself, strongly oppose the level of support Israel gets from the U.S., but I'm hearing, perhaps incorrectly, an argument that the Jews really run the US, and are responsible for Iranophobia. If so, you are dealing in stereotypes, and certainly not in the very real political and popular opinion about Iran in the US. I am not trying to get into a game of mutual blame, but you haven't mentioned the embassy seizure, which drives a great many Americans into utter fury with Iran, just as the Airbus shootdown, I'm sure, drives many Iranians into fury.


 * Are you seriously suggesting that the US has to conform to Iranian ideas of appropriateness in movies before relations can improve? In like manner, it will be a long wait -- as in probably never -- that the American people believe that they were principally responsible for the Iran-Iraq War, as opposed to Saddam.  Are you willing to suspend these mutual accusations about who was mean to whom, and deal with the actual dynamics of two wars, the Iran-Iraq and US-Iraq? The theory that the US conducted the Tanker War purely to support Iraq is not going to go very far with American opinion or politics. If both sides recognize that some American politicians, at a certain time, tapped into some very deep anger at Iran, just as some Iranian leaders tapped into some very deep anger at the US, it won't change what happened, but it can make the discussion much more historically accurate.


 * No cooperation is going to occur as long as the discussion is on American or Iranian attitudes,as opposed to actions.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear berkowitz, again you are talking as if I am a politician. I just said that there are lobbies, which endanger Irano-American relationship. There is no counter movement in America. I did not say that all American Jews are Iranophobic, but there is certainly a Zionist lobby of them which works towards deteriration of Irano-American relationship. I am aware of how Americans think about Iran. I travel a lot to the USA. I should say that authorities are disrespectful at the airports, wventhough I have a European citizenship. NBut many people are quite nice, especially in the interirr states some people are exteremely ignorant. But not much so in new York, California, Chicago and Florida. About the embassy issue I should say: That happened long ago and had its own rationale. Many were angry at what USA had done before in Iran and the country was in Chaos and did not posses an stable government or police forces. How sad it was, it resulted to no deaths.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)