Talk:List of intelligence agencies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

[Untitled][edit]

I would just like to point out that this article's purpose is not to list every single intelligence organization of a country. I have seen countries in this article with lists of obscure intelligence organizations where simply the main one would do. Detailed lists of the ins and outs of a countries intelligence gathering capabilities are for seperate articles, not this summary where it simply confuses the situation by showing a list of mostly irrelivent little intelligence gathering entities rather than the main intelligence agency or agencies for that country.--Supertask 01:16, 12 March 2008 (GMT)


Should FRA (http://www.fra.se/english.shtml) be on the list of Swedish intelligence agencies? --- In the USA, AFAIK, "secret service" always refers to the United States Secret Service. I think we may need some kind of disambiguation here.


I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. It's on the list anyway. --Minimax

FRA is SIGINT, so it probably has a place. SÄPO, on the other hand, is counter-intelligence.Athulin (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Special Branch of Royal Hong Kong Police Force[edit]

In terms of administrative hierarchy, the Special Branch (disbanded in 1995) was one of the branches of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. It probably has much collaboration with the relevent agency in the UK, but that does not make it a division of the Special Branch of the UK. User:Huaiwei has attempted to change how the information is presented in the article [1] [2] [3]. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 14:51 (UTC):The

The point here is that prior to 1997, HK is a colony of the United Kingdom. In the same way that we would probably classify Hong Kong's institutions as subordinates of the government in Beijing today, pre-1997 Hong Kong is basically answerable to the British government...in fact even more so to the UK than HK is to Beijing now because of "guaranteed autonomy" offered by the Chinese government. The British offer no such autonomy.--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
What you are saying is true. But the way you edited the article made the Special Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force presented as a division of the Special Branch in the United Kingdom. The real fact is that it is answerable to the Hong Kong Government, which is in turn answerable to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. The Special Branch in Hong Kong is not part of the Special Branch in the UK. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 10:27 (UTC)
It is a part of the Hong Kong Police, which is in turn a part of the hk colonial government, which is in turn a subordinate of the British government. Is this the fact you are trying to convey?--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
Right. But colonies are not considered part of the UK. Departments and agencies in the colonies are not part of those in the UK either. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 11:09 (UTC)
That said, HK is not a country in this list either.--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)


User:Huaiwei requested me to explain in his edit summary. In fact, what should be said have been said.. just that she/he doesn't seem to be satisfied. — Instantnood July 8, 2005 19:44 (UTC)

When you fail to be able to convince in the above discussion, then of course I will not be satisfied. I believe anyone can read it too.--Huaiwei 21:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
You failed to convince me either, but you insist your point of view should prevail. — Instantnood 06:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto when it comes to your reaction, isnt it?--Huaiwei 07:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
You have never explained why you consider the Special Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force of Hong Kong as a branch of the Special Branch of the United Kingdom. — Instantnood 08:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I have explained it again and again in very clear terms. The special branch of the HK police is a subordinate of the HK govt, which in turn is a subordinate of the British government. What forms the "HK special branch" is in essense a British endeavour, and is British led, and feeds on British intelligence mechanisms. Whatsmore, you dont even seem to disagree with me when I mentioned this above, so whats the issue now?--Huaiwei 09:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're not answering my question. The way you presented made the Special Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force a branch of the Special Branch of the United Kingdom. I was asking why you consider the Special Branch in Hong Kong a branch of the Special Branch of the UK. You were also told that the United Kingdom did not (and does not) consider colonies as part of the United Kingdom. — Instantnood 09:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I am answering your question perfectly well, but you cant seem to grasp it, intentionally or otherwise. Your question is flawed, because I did not consider the HK special branch as as a branch of the British Special branch. However, I consider them to be closely linked because the one in HK is basically setup and operated by the British, so it makes sense to list this entity under the British umbrella. I dont see why this has to do with whether a colony is "considered part of the UK or not", and even then, the British consider their colonial possessions "British soil". If you do not understand what this means, take, for example, the way establishments of the British military in her colonies were treated as British establishments first and foremost, and not as local ones.--Huaiwei 09:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
To repeat myself: the way of presentation in your edit made the Special Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force a branch of the Special Branch of the United Kingdom. (If this is not what you're trying to convey please consider rephrasing it.) Colonies are "British soil", but they are not, and never, part of the United Kingdom. Special branches are parts of the police forces rather than the military. — Instantnood 10:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned the military as an example, so I dont need to be told that they are part of the police, and not the military. The presentation format you adopted gives the impression that HK's special brach is completely independent from the agency in any country on Earth. That is simply untrue. This presentation establishes that link, and is not a question of the status of British colonies.--Huaiwei 10:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The Special Branch in Hong Kong was not subordinate to any intelligence or police agency in the UK, although they probably had much collaboration. User:SchmuckyTheCat added reference that Hong Kong was then a British colony in brackets.. I agree with her/his edit and had kept it. — Instantnood 11:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
How about the way it's written now? (Special Branch on one line; Special Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police on another) Dbinder 19:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that colonies (as well as crown dependencies such as the Isle of Man and Jersey, and the present-day overseas territories) are not considered part of the United Kingdom, and therefore special branches of the colonies are not agencies of the United Kingdom. — Instantnood 20:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Then put Hong Kong as a separate section and "as British territory" or something to the effect. It shouldn't be as it was before, with Hong Kong listed under the UK, and then Special Branch of... under Hong Kong. As Huaiwei said, it made it sound like Hong Kong was a military branch. Dbinder 21:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
That's what I did [4]. User:SchmuckyTheCat added the words "British colonial period" in brackets [5] and I agreed with that. User:Huaiwei was not satisfied with it, and went on to modified it, effectively implying the Special Branch in Hong Kong is a division of the Special Branch in the UK [6]. She/he said in the edit summary that " The secret service in HK is a branch of the one in the UK " [7], and " and during HK's colonial era, the colony answers to its British master " [8] (which she/he later denied by saying " Your question is flawed, because I did not consider the HK special branch as as a branch of the British Special branch " [9] and " This presentation establishes that link " [10]). — Instantnood 21:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC) (modified 10:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC))
I am fully agreeable to the current version by Dbinder. I started wondering why I didnt think of this presentation format before! :D--Huaiwei 05:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Canadian section[edit]

in the Canadian section, there is a redlink to Canadian Forces Intelligence Branch. There is also an already created page called Intelligence Branch (Canadian Forces). Are these the same agencies? NorthernThunder 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sweden is gone[edit]

The headline 'Sweden' have disaprerd from the list. the swedish intelligence agencies are now listed under Spain. Can anyone that knows how to, change this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndersM123 (talkcontribs) 18:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

North Korea[edit]

I can find nothing here about North Korean intelligence, security or black ops agencies... could anyone remedy this? A government like Kim Jong Il's couldn't possibly not have those things. Are they really so secretive that no information on them exists in the public domain? 213.181.226.21 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion[edit]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Brunei = Singapore?[edit]

Why does Brunei have a link to the internal security division of Singapore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.93.186 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

840609105139 Mohamad kifli 840609105139 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Japan[edit]

Japan shall have a sercret service just for economic sector. I already read about it on wikipedia, but can't find it.--89.182.12.42 (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC) aso japan is the best country

Radar Imaging[edit]

US agencies[edit]

I am removing the independent agencies and CIA listing in favor of a link to the US Intelligence Community. If CIA is listed, the other 16 agencies should be as well. In favor of saving space, the link to the US IC should suffice. If you want to bring back the CIA listing, then include all of the other agencies as well. The CIA is far from the only intel agency in the US, in fact the US IC is the largest in the world due to the other agencies as well as the CIA. 208.118.179.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Children's agency removal[edit]

I have removed the Children's MIK Spying Agency HQ from the list for multiple reasons. It does not meet the notability guidelines; upon Googling that intelligence agency, all that came up was this Wikipedia page, and a free .webs website. Furthermore, it is not an intelligence agency. It is a website made by some children with the intention of training and improving their spying skills. Regardless of the purpose of that website - which is not the issue being discussed here - it is simply not an intelligence agency. Based on these grounds, the content which linked to the "spying agency" has been removed. Thevaluablediamond (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrative Department of Security (Colombia) Shouldn't be in the active list anymore.[edit]

Colombia's Administrative Department of Security is defunct. The new agency is National Directorate of Intelligence. This change is reflected in the article specific to Administrative Department of Security found on Wikipedia. It should probably be moved to the list of defunct intelligence agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdonne (talkcontribs) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing Corps of Gendarmerie of Vatican City[edit]

Article on the organization mentions no intelligence functions. As far as I can tell, The Vatican has no official intelligence agencies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of intelligence agencies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of intelligence agencies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)