Talk:Stellar Wind: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:00, 29 January 2014

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Government Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

This is clearly the same as the NSA call database. The Newsweek article is writing that NSA vacuums up about "the records of calls and e-mails of tens of millions of average Americans between September 2001 and March 2004."

I do not think NSA uses the name "NSA call database", Stellar Wind is their own code namne. I am going to add this information to the Swedish article on the NSA call database.

I agree, the article should be merged with NSA call database. I quickly cleaned it up until such time as I can make sure all this info gets into the other article, then I'll redirect.Matttoothman (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article is fine as is. We have had too much merging of articles like this one. Typically they are buried and vanish after a while. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

I can't tell what this non-sentence is trying to say: "Naming the official William Binney a former NSA code breaker." Can someone fix it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New leak 27 Jun - OIG Draft report - Stellar wind

"NSA inspector general report on email and internet data collection under Stellar Wind – full document"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection

51 pages, Dated 24 Mar 2009.

The Washington Post's version is 57 pages

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/national-security-agency-inspector-general-draft-report/277/

There are trivial differences between the versions in wording and formatting. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another article.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/what-the-ashcroft-hospital-showdown-on-nsa-spying-was-all-about/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with President's Surveillance Program

I think this article should be merged with the article President's Surveillance Program, as from the NSA Inspector General report from 2009 (see above) it becomes clear that STELLARWIND is the cover name for information gathered under the President's Surveillance Program. P2Peter (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Stellar Wind" is a flashier name so the other article could merge here, or not. IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These types of surveillance programs (and world news stories) are so big and potentially expanding, why merge now? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not? I think it would clarify things, as now it seems that both things are different programs, which isn't the case. The President's Surveillance Program is the main thing, STELLARWIND is just the codeword for info gathered under that program. But I will take a look, and see how to add this info in both articles first, then a merger can happen when one think it's appropriate. P2Peter (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Wind is merely one piece of software. The President's Surveillance Program was broader. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction re: SARS

The following is incorrect:

"One of the known uses of these data were the creation of suspicious activity reports, or "SARS", about people suspected of terrorist activities."

SARs are reports submitted by financial institutions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Treasury, under anti-money laundering statutes. For example, if I walked into a bank with a suitcase full of $10,000 or more in cash, or made a series of large cash deposits, a SAR would be filed with FinCEN. The point is that for the first time, NSA was able to access this data.

While it was a SAR that alerted authorities to Elliot Spitzer, that is irrelevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson945 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The request to rename this article to Stellar Wind has been carried out.

If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Stellar Wind (code name) → Stellar Wind – Not really ambiguous when capitalized and the only other potential meaning can be clarified with a hatnote pointing to the common noun phrase stellar wind. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, seems reasonable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to change the name of this article, please write it as STELLARWIND, as that's the official way it's written by NSA. P2Peter (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – we don't normally disambiguate by a case change alone, in spite of rare exceptions like Red Meat. Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - See WP:DIFFCAPS to refute the above comment. Only two topics, so just hatnotes are required here. Woodshed (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says they "may", not that it's a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the subject. So if it can be done without a parenthetical, it should should be. Published reference works don't use these parentheticals, so we should not assume that readers are hip to this Wiki-usage. Muslim Russia (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 * '''Support''' - See [[WP:DIFFCAPS]] to refute the above comment. Only two topics, so just hatnotes are required here. [[User:Woodshed|Woodshed]] ([[User talk:Woodshed|talk]]) 02:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 ::It says they "may", not that it's a good idea.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
+*'''Support'''. The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the subject. So if it can be done without a parenthetical, it should should be. Published reference works don't use these parentheticals, so we should not assume that readers are hip to this Wiki-usage. [[User:Muslim Russia|Muslim Russia]] ([[User talk:Muslim Russia|talk]]) 07:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)