This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Greetings, I've added a sentence to the summary and a small section to the international section on boomerang routing - an important new area of research into the NSA's surveillance activities. I see we've been going back and forth on the summary a bit. Two points: 1) We should keep the domestic phone point separate from the international internet data point as coupling these two ideas together suggests a direct connection (which is an oversimplification) and also reads awkwardly. 2) I'd also appreciate you leaving in the citation that I added, which refers to peer-reviewed and published academic research in the area. Why remove a good citation? It only improves the quality of the article. The more the better! Thanks. --Jaobar (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The lede should not have citations; it would be better for those that are already there to be removed. The function of the lede is to summarize what follows in the rest of the article, and this is in any case a very short point, so there's really no reason to have it cited in the lede as well as the body. So I request you self-revert your readdition of the cite in the lede. Also, you initially linked boomerang routing - if you believe it merits an article, do go ahead and write one, then the link can be readded (but "routing" should not be capitalised). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment; however, your point about not having citations in the lede appears to generally be incorrect, based on my knowledge of general practice on Wikipedia. You appear to be a far more experienced editor than I am, so I'm surprised that I'm having to make this argument. Even the Banana article, which we use as a model in class, has citations in the lede, so I'm not quite sure where this is coming from. I have also reviewed some of the feature articles on Wikiproject Medicine, and the practice of citing in the lede is seen there. As I've already stated, citations increase the credibility of an article, so unless excessive citation is creating an awkward reading experience, I don't see your point at all. I'm shocked that I'm having to justify the use of an academic citation! Furthermore, as I'm sure you know the majority of readers only look at the lede, so having a citation next to a contentious point is a good thing. I will not remove the citation unless you can point me to a Wikipedia policy that suggests otherwise. Unless you can do this, I see no justification for your removal, based on policy. If, by chance, you are concerned that I am citing a study that I myself have authored, please do say so; however, as far as I know, this practice is encouraged. --Jaobar (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not about the quality of the citation, let alone who wrote it, and I'm surprised you keep putting it that way - the reference is entirely appropriate in the relevant section. WP:LEADCITE is the relevant guidance, and as I read it boils down to: the lede should rarely require citations, because the material is going to be presented in detail below. That also applies to your point about readers' habits: anyone interested in reading more, including seeing what the source was for a particular piece of information, can look in the relevant section of the article itself. What's normally done is to have a reference on something that doesn't appear in the body (such as birth and death dates) or, as the guidance page says, something particularly likely to be challenged - that's probably why there are citations in the lede of this article. But I do not believe this particular point is contentious enough for that to apply. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The archiving bot was set up so as to archive everything to Archive 35, with a max size of 1000Kb (!), leaving only the very last thread, and with no link from this page to the archive page. I have changed the parameters, manually created Archives 1 through 4, moved out some old threads that were not time-stamped, and moved two more recent threads back in. Unfortunately, Talk:National Security Agency/Archive 35 still exists. That may cause technical problems in ten years or so. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
National as the name say but the article do not say much which nation control the agency. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The National Security Agency (NSA) is a (1) U.S. intelligence agency responsible for global monitoring, collection, decoding, translation and analysis of information and data (2)for foreign intelligence and (etc)
1 where it spy
2 for who it spy - the 2 as we know is. unspicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Same IP for both comments, so I'm not sure whether the second is an answer to the first? "U.S." is, as you quote, specified right at the start, and that would be the "nation" referred to in the name. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If Alice spy on Bob it do not mean Alice spy for Bob. The goute say for who: for foreign intelligence but is silent which nation - is. As they spy also on US highest governing body US Congress] - so knowing NSA is Alice and Bob US - do thealice spy on bob or for bob. The article opening sentence need to be changed acording to logic, semantic and sources. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. It says it's a US agency; therefore it spies on behalf of the US, and that's the nation referred to in the name. Who it spies on does not change that. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting the first sentence. For foreign intelligence means "to gain intelligence on foreigners", not "to gain intelligence on behalf of foreigners". Maybe it could be clarified. Brycehughes (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)