This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, April 12, 2007, see discussion. keep, September 29, 2006, see discussion. Keep, June 29, 2006, see discussion.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Espionage Low‑importance Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

Added to the page:

• Ray McGovern official site

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

• Ray McGovern, co-founder, official site. Added to the page. Ironcurtain2 ( talk) 10:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Stop adding that link. This is not his article, so it doesn't belong here, only on his article. McAfee also blocks it as a possibly dangerous website. It also likely violates WP:ELNO. There is no justifiable reason to use it here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I respect your edits and many additions to the article, respect my one link. I do not want to get in a prolonged edit war. I do not want to get in an acronym war either. I think you have enough edit wars on your plate already, Valjean. I really do not know how to deal effectively with edit warriors such as you, who will liberally delete views that do not support their own POV. Ironcurtain2 ( talk) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I just discovered these comments after discovering your deletion of all that I and others had done. That's an odd way to show your "respect for my edits and additions". Don't confuse my personal POV (you also have one, so don't even mention it) with what RS say and what our manual of style says. The article has been out of balance for some time, and my edits were required by our WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:LEAD rules.

If you have a question about some particular wording and can't figure out how it's backed by RS, or why it was made, then ask about it here and we can figure out what to do about it.

That external link to McGovern belongs ONLY on his article, and it's there. Those are the rules here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

As I wrote on User_talk:Philomathes2357#People_who_own_their_POV:

sigh, @User:Valjean starting yet another edit war on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, this is my surprised face.  :-| I am busy. Will address this later. Thank you for your moral consistency User:Valjean. ;-o

Ironcurtain2 ( talk) 20:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

?? You have been instructed above how to deal with content you don't understand. Instead of edit warring, just ask me about it, and do it in a new thread, using exact quotes. We can collaborate. I'll gladly explain what RS say about the content or what rules were followed. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Members as of January 25, 2024: ^[1]

Ironcurtain2 ( talk) 14:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply