Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Is this an ongoing active group?[edit]

No RS tells us that this is a coherent active continuously functioning "group" of any sort. More the opposite. 25 former spooks got together 15 years ago to protest Bush Administration actions. Did they organize legally or in any other formal action, e.g. with a statement of principles, purpose and procedure? Do they meet or at least communicate from time to time, or have any coherent governance? Do they have continuous ongoing membership or activities. It could just be different folks reusing the catchy VIPS tag. The article sounds on a quick and casual read as if this were a bona-fide "group" like the Union of Concerned Scientists or at least one of thousands of other affinity organizations. But sources and the article say nothing to support presenting it as if it were an organized entity. The article merely lists a succession of protests, some detailed and reasoned, others gross and goofy. Of the 25 retired folks who wrote the memos 15 years back, how many are still affiliated with the "organization" -- i.e. put out press releases under this monicker? Of the ones who were retired senior citizens back in the day, how many are still sharp and in touch with current intelligence in their much later years? Arguably RS tell us some of them are relying on pretty sketchy narratives for their ruminations, witness the manifest errors and omissions as reported in RS. Maybe AfD is coming down the pike? Discuss amongst yourselves. SPECIFICO talk 11:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One possible way to deal with this would be a change of article title to "Veteran...Sanity (memos)" or some other title that does not portray these statements as coming from an established or continuous organization. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From an editorial viewpoint, the problem is similar in many fake news articles. Recently this arose in Murder of Seth Rich. The meta-event is notable, but the event is not. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is The Nation's report on the VIPS / Forensicator theory "fake news"? Looks like plain old "news" to me. Or are you saying that the self-titled VIPS is fake because it's apparently not an incorporated group? Even then, we can have real news about a fake group. I'd appreciate a clarification of what you call fake. — JFG talk 04:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention the nation in this section of the page. Please read up on "fake news" it's well defined, detailed and discussed in many RS publications that will do a better job than I of clarifying your general understanding. I respectfully suggest it would be time well spent, because a nose for fake news is key to our ability to edit according to WP policy and guidelines. I did not say that VIPS is fake. Please don't misrepresent other editors with straw man insinuations. Come to think of it, that's a favorite fake news tactic. Who can deny Seth Rich was murdered? Therefore the Russians didn't hack DNC. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "the problem is similar in many fake news articles", which prompted my question: "what do you call fake news in sources or contents of this article? Thanks for clarifying that you do not consider VIPS to be a fake group and you do not consider The Nation to peddle fake news. The Seth Rich controversy is irrelevant to the present discussion, I don't see why you bring it up. — JFG talk 09:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can follow the links to their papers here, which list steering committee members. Mind you, we may lack sufficient reliable sources for a neutral article. Note there is no website so we cannot even use that as a source. Personally I would vote to delete the article, but it's difficult to get anything deleted. TFD (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But if I may state my personal conjecture, I think it may be like many volunteer organizations of retirees geezers and brilliant kibitzers. Many such groups resurrect the "organization" name from time to time when one of them has something on her mind, but it's really just ad hoc, personal, and not the considered position of any group. AfD would bring a blizzard of fake newsicles and snowman arguments. Not worth the trouble just now. Also we could have a Seth Rich type situation where the story is one day revealed about the mysterious fake news propagation of what turns out to be goofy packet-counting propaganda. The dude hosting that website doesn't have a James Bond resume. I thought these were ex-CIA types. Anyway, it looks like a stale zombie website from the early Bush thingy was replaced only about 6 weeks ago by the one that's now featured. The website title doesn't seem very intel-like, does it? SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:OR and "personal conjecture" has no place in a sober discussion of the article topic. But I'm sure you know that. — JFG talk 09:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! Let me explain. WP operates on an affirmative editorial policy. My conjecture, identified as such (not OR, see?) was to point out how you can convince folks of the contrary. Just show RS citations that document this "group" as an ongoing organization rather than a ketchy title in the internet, VIPS. And the more we see, the more likely it appears that's not going to happen. So now please lay off the personal remarks and simply prove your case. I leave you to your proof. The burden is on you to develop policy-based content. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, I have no "case" to "prove". I was simply wondering how your ruminations about VIPS may help improve the article. For the record, I don't care whether VIPS exists as an organized group and I have not contributed to this particular article. RS refer to the group as VIPS, so it's only natural that the article follows sources. I originally hatted this section per WP:NOTFORUM (which you reverted) and I don't see how the latest contributions bring us any closer to improvements. — JFG talk 15:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand, I suggest you back off. This thread is about sourcing and content. Others have contributed and will continue to do so. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me I understand the point you are making. You are asking other editors to find sources proving that this group meets some definition of "permanent", "active" or "organized" that would SATISFY you. And you insinuate that if people can't readily find such sources, then it discredits whatever is written by VIPS, in the name of VIPS, or about VIPS in various RS. Sounds like "I don't like what these people are saying, so I'll question their relevance" kind of ad hominem argument. Again, if you have some proposed improvements to the article, rather than vague suppositions, I'd love to read about them and educate myself further. — JFG talk 16:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that you're the one who's off-base on a valid line of discussion and tossing in bad faith criticisms of other editors about this line of questioning. You are overlooking the fact that the existence of the group meets with WP:V, but it does not follow on that there is an article in it as the article is about VIPS, not "VIPS memos" (which wouldn't fly as an article unless who they are and their mission statement was defined by RS). We're not talking about a terrorist group, for example, making high profile news in RS, yet no one knows anything about their political/religious/general raison d'être/raisons d'être for their actions/memos/existence, while their actions are well documented. You are also overlooking the fact that there is a lack of RS on the group and the memos, ergo there is nothing to build a well constructed and neutral article on (as has been intelligently pointed out by both SPECIFICO and TFD in this section). A grab-bag of only a few of their many memos base on, "Oooh, they made some really good points"; "Oooh, they got it really, really wrong that time (hahaha!)!"; "Oooh, predictions of vital importance to civilization as we know it." doesn't tell us anything about VIPS, nor their ever-changing line up of notables (WP:INHERITORG) and non-notables. This isn't an encyclopaedic article, but an excuse to POVPUSH from both sides. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: I totally agree with you that pronouncements from VIPS have been more covered than VIPS themselves. That's not necessarily a bad thing: it's more informative to read about what they say than about who they are. Still, RS call them VIPS and do not question their existence or their biographies. It would be nice indeed to find some sources discussing VIPS as a group independently of their latest blurbs; however, absent such sources, we make do with what we have. I do believe it's better to have an umbrella article about VIPS listing their various well-sourced positions, rather than a smorgasbrod of 1EVENT articles on "VIPS supported A", "VIPS criticized B", "VIPS re-emerged to contradict C". The very fact that their name comes up in different stories several years apart adds to their inherent notability as a group. — JFG talk 20:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the suitability of this article for the encyclopedia, I might even support an AfD if somebody makes a sound policy-based case for deletion. — JFG talk 20:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Like if some magazine says there's this lady, shows up and says she's Amelia Earhart and she saw a UFO... We'll just tack that on to her article. It's a tautology that any of us "might even support an AfD if somebody makes a good sound policy-based case for deletion" so that's certainly not helpful. What might be helpful would be changing the name of this article to match the topic: "the VIPS memos" -- that would do the trick. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As has been noted, it's difficult to delete an article once it already exists. I honestly think that without reliably sourced content on who they are as a group (for example, at least one of the signatories to the 2003 memo has died since), the article will continue to serve as a disservice to them. There's nothing to suggest to me that they're some ad hoc bunch of doolally retirees, but their sources and opinions have been questioned. Finding some quality sources really is a make or break deal for the integrity of the article. I don't believe that changing the title to "Memos" is the best approach as it is still contingent on a knowledge of who the group are. Still, I'm open to being convinced as the current article is a fiasco. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - even that title would lead readers to infer that there is such a thing as VIPS. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept[edit]

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

Needs a tag for disputed neutrality[edit]

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

raymcgovern.com Ray McGovern official site[edit]

Added to the page:

Blocked:

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

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&oldid=1224451392"