Area 58: 2009

{{Peer review|archive=1}}

{{controversial}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start
|B-Class-1=no
|B-Class-2=no
|B-Class-3=yes
|B-Class-4=no
|B-Class-5=no
|US=yes
|Intel=yes
}}
{{Oldafdfull|date=24 September 2008|result='''delete'''|page=Area 58}}
{{olddrvfull|date=5 October 2008|result=deletion endorsed|votepage=Log/2008 September 29}}

== Copyright ==
It appears that a very large percentage of this artice is lifted and quoted from other places. These are copyright violations. While it's good that there are references, you can't just lift text off them and contribute it to Wikipedia, even with quote marks around it. These sections need to be re-written ASAP or they will be removed. Please see [[WP:COPYRIGHT|Wikipedia policy on copyright]] for guidance. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]] ^{[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]} 16:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:very well, I would point out that this writing style was a direct response to the spam crys of [[hoax]], and [[original]], in the Area 58 deletion discussion. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Area_58]][[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_29]][[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

== changes by ([[User talk:ALR| ALR]])==
while i sympathise, ALR, the section on the US Government position on area 58 is well sourced indeed. when you have a russian language source connecting area58, fort belvoir, and dceeta what is left of your classification guide then? deleting the new york times reference dosn't have a legitimate excuse. i take it by your deletion of menwith hill, but not pine gap, that you work for the UK MOD? or by your deletion of NGA not NRO that your work for NGA? the first white house use section provides another written confirmation, and historical flavor. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 16:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:As you point out many of my edits had merit, both in terms of tightening the article to resemble an encyclopedic piece and in terms of removing some of the original research. However I'll address the points in more detail here.
:*The removal of NGA. NRO operate the space vehicles, NGA analyse the imagery product. The site appears to be a space vehicle control and imagery download site, which makes it firmly NROs purview, rather than NGAs.
:*The removal of the potential Echelon downlink stations was because Echelon is alleged to be communications intercept, rather than downlink of space-based collection. Pine Gap appears to be a downlink station, not a communications intercept station, so there is some potential for them to be related.
:*The US government position on the nature and classification of the site may have some merit, however the use of the source to articulate speculation was fairly explicit original research. The NYTs opinion on what the russians may or may not know is merely their opinion, using it to bolster the OR in the rest of the section is specious, to say the least.
:*The use of imagery in persuading political figures is largely irrelevant to an article about a downlink location, it would be far more appropriate to place that material in the article about Imagery Intelligence, or Intelligence analysis, since that's largely where the political influence comes in. Show a politician some guuci pictures and they're far more likely to believe the conclusions of the associated report.
:*The improvements to the lead follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, in terms of introducing the topic and providing a flavour without descending into emotive terminology and speculation.
:*For what it's worth I'm tempted to just AfD this again, but I think it may have potential to remain, albeit as a very short article. It needs pared back to what little factual content may be available. At the moment there remains far too much noise and unencyclopedic trivia in the article. I am prepared to work with you to try to improve the article, and if you wish you can merely provide obstruction to any improvement.
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== Procurement law section ==

My gut instinct with this section is to delete it on the basis of the ''so what'' issue, however it may have some relevance, so I'm prepared to discuss it first. At the moment the section consists of a factual, if somewhat esoteric, legal point and a lengthy quote without context. I think the germane point is that procurement legislation was breached, but my interpretation of the legal opinion is that no action was to be taken as a result of that non-compliance. As it stands the section fails to make any suggestion of significance. As with any industrial location I'm sure there are many minor legal breaches every year, what makes this one special in any way?

[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== Alleged Y2K issues ==

The section on ''Y2K'' issues is confused, the titling suggests a Y2K related issue yet the sources suggest this was a protracted ATM fault which happened to exhibit on 1 Jan. At present I would question the significance of the section given that the sources do not support what was previously said, and are pretty tenuous with respect to how I've changed it justnow. I would recommend that this section is removed as it does not appear to have any great significance.

[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 21:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

==ALR - dogue debate==
1- As you point out many of my edits had merit, both in terms of tightening the article to resemble an encyclopedic piece and in terms of removing some of the original research. However I'll address the points in more detail here.
:there is not an original sentence in the article: every sentence is from a verified source. hence the warning above of copyright. (except one sentence by [[User:Suntag]], can you find it?)
::Whilst each point may be copied from elsewhere there is quite a lot of potential to speculate both in the sources identified and the way in which tye are put together. Also indiscriminate cut-and paste from other sources does not in itself confer significance or encyclopedic style or approach.
::: changing the subject, i take it you agree it's not original, now are you switching to copyright?
::::The point is not ''copyright'' but it's how you use the information. What you appear to have done is cut-and-pasted a random collection of ''stuff'' but with no discernible purpose about what you're trying to convey to the reader. In all honesty all I can extract from your comments is that you're trying to demonstrate that the site exists. The approach in writing an article is to make a statement and then support if using a reference, whereas what you appear to have done is throw out a load of content and hope the reader comes to the conclusion you want them to. Can you actually articulate what it is you're trying to say about the location, the existence of which doesn't appear to be in doubt.
:::::seems to hang together to me. no i merely report what the sources say, the reader can draw their own conclusions.

::::::This appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how articles are developed in Wikipedia, the purpose and the approach to developing content. I'll address the issue from a different approach as this mode is clearly going nowhere.[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 19:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::not a misunderstanding, but an impass. you're saying that like the [[Office of Special Plans]], i am sexing up a sweep of online speculation to support the preconception of area 58, and then presenting the article like the Oct 2002 'declassified' NIE, ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq]) which may stray far from the truth. such is wiki: the distributed internet makes command and control, and stovepiped organizations such as the NRO, obsolete. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 14:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::If you wish to characterise your approach to article writing in that way, then that is entirely up to you. However rather than continuing this discussion, which is clearly going nowhere, kindly address my question in the new section below.
::::::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 15:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::you change the subject, this impass will go nowhere, since we understand each other perfectly well.[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
2- The removal of NGA. NRO operate the space vehicles, NGA analyse the imagery product. The site appears to be a space vehicle control and imagery download site, which makes it firmly NROs purview, rather than NGAs.
:i agree NRO is in charge, however, this is original, the source says: "It's at Area 58 where NRO and its sister organization, NIMA, manage the daily operations of the imagery network."

::I suspect your understanding of the US Intelligence community may be a bit weak here. Each entity within the IC has responsibility for a small piece of the whole. this is a downlink site, and whilst NGA may have a facility co-located the sources talk about constellation management, not creation of geo-spatial intelligence from the product. It's not OR to inform the use of the sources, however it is unencyclopedic to uncritically copy chunks of sources without applying some thought to what it means.
:::my and your understanding dosn't matter, nice original work though, what does the source say?
::::The understanding does matter. Having an appreciation of how the IC is structured, and the political dynamics therein, allow one to qualify the sources and represent them appropriately. My point above remains, you need to be clear on what you're trying to say, then support it. If this is a downlink site, then it's NRO, if it's a GEOINT/ IMINT analysis location then it's probably NGA.
:::::lol, so said the CIA to Dick Cheney, wiki like him is designed to drill down to the raw source material. given that NGA dosn't have their combined headquarters built yet (2011 lol), i suspect that they have a group here doing analysis, its a big building over 100,000 sq.ft. and 200-400 cars (but that would be original)
3 - The removal of the potential Echelon downlink stations was because Echelon is alleged to be communications intercept, rather than downlink of space-based collection. Pine Gap appears to be a downlink station, not a communications intercept station, so there is some potential for them to be related.
:the russian source names Pine Gap, DCEETA, and Menwith Hill. why delete one and not the other two?
::See also sections are for ''appropriate topics of interest not already included in the text''. It really doesn't matter what the russian source says, essentially NRO downlink of space vehicle intercepts are different from the material that Echelon is alleged to handle. Read the Pine Gap article, it's fairly clear from there that it's a downlink site, not an intercept site, whereas Echelon is likely to be an intercept capability, not a downlink site.
:::the russian source is verifiable, you are making an original distinction. i did not mention echelon, clearly you believe there is a difference, do you have a source? could the data traffic be combined?

::::There is a difference, for starters Echelon appears to be about signals intercept, not Imagery collection.
::::The traffic would not be combined in the downlink, however an all source analyst would use IMINT and SIGINT, amongst others modes of collection, to develop a report.
::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 19:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::you're making the assumption that echelon is ground based (hard to reference), and a packet switch downlink would include all traffic from all sources - for example the TDRS handles both optical and X-ray data from orbiting telescopes.
::::::This article isn't about Echelon, so take out the Echelon related content.
::::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 15:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::could you be more specific, what is the echelon related content? is this distinction original with you?[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
4 - The US government position on the nature and classification of the site may have some merit, however the use of the source to articulate speculation was fairly explicit original research. The NYTs opinion on what the russians may or may not know is merely their opinion, using it to bolster the OR in the rest of the section is specious, to say the least.

:"articulate speculation"? The criteria is verifiability [[WP:V]]:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

:I don't much care for the NYTimes either, so what? It is a verifiable source. (it is not a dead link, but may require a login)
:::no comment?
::::No. there doesn't appear to be a point to respond to.
:::::this critical point for which you do not have a credible response
5 - The use of imagery in persuading political figures is largely irrelevant to an article about a downlink location, it would be far more appropriate to place that material in the article about Imagery Intelligence, or Intelligence analysis, since that's largely where the political influence comes in. Show a politician some guuci pictures and they're far more likely to believe the conclusions of the associated report.
:"guuci pictures" very good, i agree. however, the relevance goes to the verifiable first use of the facility, 1977.
::It's just not encyclopedic, you're making an uncritical and poorly informed use of a source to say ''something. The ''something'' is neither clear from the text nor particularly meaningful to the reader at the moment. If you're asserting that this demonstrates that the site was active in 1977 then say so, and use the source to support that. I don't think that is adds much, since the NRO were operating constellations before then.
:::flag it as unclear and edit, not delete. the title header says "white house first use"
:::::yes they were operating, but it was not real time intelligence, there were significant delays to flying the film about
6 - The improvements to the lead follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, in terms of introducing the topic and providing a flavour without descending into emotive terminology and speculation.
:"Manual of Style"? the three sentences go to the where, what, and why notable questions.
:you say flavour, i say flavor; let's call the whole thing off.
:::no comment? i take it you have no reason to delete the mention of area 58 other than its a secret?
::::The site is not known as Area 58 as a matter of course, except perhaps in some conspiracy theory circles. It appears to be known as DCEETA or Aerospace Data Facility (East), since the article is titled DCEETA then I'd recommend using that in MoS compliance. As I understand it the area code is merely a cataloging tool in the US.
:::::i'm saying aka area 58, since that is what the verifiable sources say, it does clarify the subject given the change of flags. no evidence of Aerospace Data Facility East other than the sign, all the sources say DCEETA. i take it someone noticed the connection between DCEETA, and area 58, and took action to 'sanitize' the issue. we could call it the 'forest moon of [[Endor (Star Wars)| Endor ]]'. is the NRO classification guide conspiracy bait? wasn't it was necessary in order to reclassify other sources?
7 - For what it's worth I'm tempted to just AfD this again, but I think it may have potential to remain, albeit as a very short article. It needs pared back to what little factual content may be available. At the moment there remains far too much noise and unencyclopedic trivia in the article. I am prepared to work with you to try to improve the article, and if you wish you can merely provide obstruction to any improvement.
:Go ahead AfD, but the criteria will be not "factual content", but verifiable content, i will stand by the consensus. Your edits are censorship, not improvement. you shouldn't imagine that censoring this article like king canute will purge the knowledge or dissemination of area 58, nor will it erase the memories, of the many people who know. i am ready and willing to work with good faith parties, such as Suntag to edit this article, but editing out verified area 58, is not part of that, the quotes from the source tell the story, and should and will stand.
::Once we've culled all the trivia and cruft then the article might ''just'' pass notability. NRO has ''estate'', once we've got to the situation where the article is factual, informative and demonstrates some significance then the question of deletion can be considered. Uncritically including all sorts of cruft isn't helping to go through that process.
:::well, how is pine gap, menwith hill, notable, and area 58 not notable? because there is not yet an outside demonstration against them? i can accomodate that objection.
:::::by using a ''cruft'' filter, you are acting as a good intelligence analyst, not wiki article writer, again changing the subject from 'speculative content' to notability.
8 - My gut instinct with this section is to delete it on the basis of the ''so what'' issue, however it may have some relevance, so I'm prepared to discuss it first. At the moment the section consists of a factual, if somewhat esoteric, legal point and a lengthy quote without context. I think the germane point is that procurement legislation was breached, but my interpretation of the legal opinion is that no action was to be taken as a result of that non-compliance. As it stands the section fails to make any suggestion of significance. As with any industrial location I'm sure there are many minor legal breaches every year, what makes this one special in any way?
:you're right the continuing breaking of the law is not notable, the fact that a supplier sued a black project is. i don't suppose they will be getting any more contracts. the mention of [[MQSeries]] verifies the operations.
::Again if you're trying to assert that the place exists then this doesn't add a great deal. Are you familiar with that ''messaging'' services are for? Again we're into ''NRO has estate and computers''.
:::very good, but middleware that is used for message traffic? a lawsuit is a source for area 51, how is this different?
::::The existence of the site isn't really in doubt, again I'll reiterate, make your point and support it with a reference, don't indiscriminately throw down random quotes and hope the reader will come to some sort of conclusion.
:::::good so you agree it exists, now what will we call it?
9 - The section on ''Y2K'' issues is confused, the titling suggests a Y2K related issue yet the sources suggest this was a protracted ATM fault which happened to exhibit on 1 Jan. At present I would question the significance of the section given that the sources do not support what was previously said, and are pretty tenuous with respect to how I've changed it justnow. I would recommend that this section is removed as it does not appear to have any great significance.
:the verifiable Y2K articles validate operations, that were disrupted. the fact that the dep sec def had to comment, that disa's atm blew up is notable, even if it was a ticking time bomb.
::Again you're not using the source to support the assertion that the place exists and does ''stuff''.
:::well the in fighting is amusing, is that notable?
::::Internal politics is hardly notable.
:::::the keystone cops are notable to me, it was an event that shown a spotlight on operations there (doncha love the atm talk)
10 -
:you keep deleting the entrance sign, that any passerby can verify, why?
::Largely because the photo is crap, as is the one of the side of the building.
:::come on over take a better one, ok i'll go take a a better one. why don't you leave it up 'til then?
::::Because it's crap. It doesn't even contain the whole DoD logo or the name of the site.
:::::come on over, we'll take a group photo
11-
:you keep deleting the verifiable GPS coordinates, why? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
::Because I'm having trouble finding them to retain them. Feel free to pop them in using the style recommended.
:::it is a sourced link
::::No problem, but given the amount of cruft I'll trust you to actually track down the guidance and insert the data appropriately.
:::::well you seem to have put in garbage coordinates, rather than the verifiable sourced ones.[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
12 -
::Can we try to keep discussion together, rather than start new sections each time. Not difficult and it makes holding an informed and reasoned discussion easier.::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 15:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
:::make up your mind, undoing the numbers dosn't make it easy to follow your evasions: you really didn't answer the fundamental point about verifiable sources versus 'speculating sources'. wiki editing is different from intelligence editing. let me also point out that the [[Official Secrets Act]] dosn't apply on this side of the pond. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Huh???
::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 21:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::the point being that it might be illegal to pinpoint the location of Area 58 in the UK, it is not in the US. wiki is governed by Florida law.[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Huh?
::::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 19:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::the point being: if you could censor the article by legal means, you would; if you could censor it by shouting 'hoax', you would; if you could censor it by calling it 'cruft' and unencyclopedic, you would do that also. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 14:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::You do appreciate, I hope, that questioning the motives of other editors might be considered as offensive to some. The point of this discussion is improvement of the article, ensuring that it is written in an encyclopedic tone and the assertions made are adequately sourced. As it stands the article does neither of these things.
::::::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 11:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::yes i do, what possible motivation is there to delete verifiable sources? 'encylopedic tone' dosn't strike me as credible. your edits don't look like 'improvement' to me, but by all means let's fiddle around the margins. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::are you from the ''[[Ministry of Truth]]''?[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
13- why do you persist in adding [[WP:WTA]] (alleged, reported, etc.) they are verifiable sources; they are more credible than you; your attempts to cast aspersions on the 'reported' facts tends to undermine your credibility, not theirs. btw, how do you like [[James Bamford]]'s book on the NSA? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

== Third-party input ==

Color me confused, but isn't this article supposed to have been deleted already per the box at the top of the page? [[User:Arimareiji|arimareiji]] ([[User talk:Arimareiji|talk]]) 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Dropped into user space and efforts were made to modify it enough to address the issues and keep it.
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::well welcome to our edit war - actually the Area 58 article was written as ALR suggests with statements supported by verifiable sources, but was quick deleted because it was thought a 'hoax', i rewrote the article using extensive quotations from sources; now ALR maintains that the NYTimes was merely speculating about the location of Area 58, 23 years ago. ''cruft'' happens[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The NYT cite belongs; I vote for it staying.
::: But the photos really are crap. =/ And a lot of the information really is trivial. It needs a lot of pruning, but I think it can be saved if you two knuckleheads can put aside your differences. You come across as having a much more civil relationship than the average editwarriors... count your blessings, and work together. ^_^ [[User:Arimareiji|arimareiji]] ([[User talk:Arimareiji|talk]]) 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

:::This time the issue isn;t so much you sources as your tone; the article reads like a ransom note and needs a spit and polish badly so that it appears as an article and not a random collection of clipped snippets that were crudely copied and pasted here for the sake of having an article. The image sizes and and overall layout need work as well. Take the article to Peer Review, thats my suggestion; you should get a butload of suggestions for improvements which I recommend implementing ASAP. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::thanks for the input TomStar, the tone of this article is a direct result of your AfD of the Area 58 article, which had the very same sources as this one. but now it's a little harder to say the NYTimes is a 'hoax' maker ain't it? i could rewrite replacing every quoted sentence with a written sentence, but then you would call it original wouldn't you? a real copyedit retaining the sources would be nice, instead of a blanket deletion of sources. oh, and is it 'chosen to "articulate speculation" 'or "random ...snippets"? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't do any rewriting until you take this through peer review. Trust me on this one, the folks at the PR will give you the suggestions that you need to keep the article here if you so choose (and its obvious you want the article kept here since you went through the trouble of attempting to rebuild it for compliance with the policies and guidelines here). Bypass the MILHIST PR and go straight to the main PR, they folks there will find all the little problems with the article and then you can work on addressing all the concerns raised there. Note that if the concerns raised hera and at PR are not adressed, the article may end up redeleted on grounds of being an indiscriminant collection of information. [[User:TomStar810|TomStar810]] ([[User talk:TomStar810|Talk]]) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

== The purpose of the article? ==

What is the purpose of this article supposed to be? As I see it there are a couple of potential themes; demonstrate that the site exits and is managed by an element of the DoD, probably NRO; the nature of the site, either space vehicle control or data download and onward dissemination.

Is there anything else to say about the site?

[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 12:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:either / or, why not both / and; the name? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::Gods this is hard work. Is there anything in addition to these points?
::The name appears to be either Aerospace Data Facility (East) which would associate it with Buckley, or DCEETA. It's not out of the question the two are collocated.
::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::i don't know why you're giving any credence whatever to [[Front organization| ''cover names'']] [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Is there anything further to add to the content?
::::As it stands I think that structurally the article is probably:
::::*Lead paragraph identifying the site with potential alternate names
::::*Location and construction history
::::*Apparent role
::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 09:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::then i trust you will stop deleting
:::::*the lead sentence with the list of aliases
:::::*the gps coordinates, and construction section
:::::*the verified sources of the role (apparent is a better choice than alleged [[WP:WTA]], good job)[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

== Candidate sources ==

Description of Aerospace Data Facility (Buckley) [http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/aedf.pdf here]

[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:oh [[Buckley AFB|Buckley]]? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC) what's the comparison with a Air Force Space Command facility? that is a nice paper, but what is the encyclopedia value of some swept up resumes?[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:funny you should source FAS, here's the FAS articles: menwith hill [http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/menwith.htm], pine gap [http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/pine_gap.htm], area 51 [http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/area-51.htm], even kunia [http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/kunia.htm], ft meade [http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/nsaftmed.htm], ascension island [http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/ascension.htm], warrenton station b [http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/warrenton_b.htm], but no area 58 [http://www.fas.org/irp/Area_58.htm].

:as a summary, prior to the pull down of the FAS area 58 article in 2004, i did access the website article, it printed out to over 10 pages. it had time elapsed satellite photos of the construction, over the years. the building kept sprawling out over time. the satellite dishes were covered with radomes. prior to the 1999 Beulah Rd realignment, the public (unscreened) road went not 5 meters from the entrance, no gate. all the y2k press coverage refers to this article. (how do you cite the missing source?)[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::A lot of the conclusions that FAS come to are pretty questionable, understandable since they're as depenent on Open source analysis as anyone else, but they do provide a moderately convenient repository of sources. Personally I'd avoid citing FAS for anything, but it is permissible to cite the material they host. That collection of material has a number of points which have potential to be useful. One of the issues with FAS is that they do tend to be a bit ''conspiracy oriented''.
::Given that the NYT article appears to associate Buckley and Belvoir, and the similarit in the sites, then it becomes reasonable to infer a similarity in role. That appears to be confused by the NSA now co-locating at Buckley as well, which may mean that their ground segment now supports both part of the Signals Intercept constellation as well as the Imagery constellation.
::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 09:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::it was the russian source that connected buckley and area 58. in 1985 NYTimes, buckley had not been built up, and was not mentioned. SIGINT and IMINT co-located around a downlink communication node, tends to argue against your previous echelon distinction. does this pseudo-Air Force cover name show the decline of CIA influence at NRO? the services satellite operations are separate from the NRO (stovepiped). do you really want to make original inferences? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 17:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

::::That's a useful illustration of the value of writing an article, rather than throwing down some random quotes. I'm also unwilling to give the NYT my credit card details so have no sight of that source either. It's largely up to you to capture what it is you're trying to say, and then attribute the sources which lead you to say that.
::::As it stands I would not interpret the russian language source in the way you seem to want to. All it is discussing is that a range of ground stations have licensed communication with associated space vehicles. There is no evidence that the space vehicles have any similarities, either in their orbit profile or collection characteristics. Some of them are collection assets, where some will be straightforward communications trunks. Would it be safe to assume, given your demonstration of understanding, that you have no familiarity with spacecraft operations?
::::With respect ot the NSA and NRO co-locating, it really depends on what is done by each at the site. Given the level of compartmentalisation in the US IC it's not out of the question that there are no links between the co-located facilities.
::::I don't share your excitement about the fact that the NRO have satellite ground stations, given that their role is the construction and operation of space vehicles then it's inevitable that they have to be able to fly them and recover the data they collect.
::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::i'm not excited, but the secret was out 23 years ago and it still is. do you read the newspaper, or are open sources suspect and secret sources gold? if you're so good at writing articles, why the willful deletion of verifiable sources; why the addition of [[WP:WTA]], is it that your excuses are not equal to your methods? you repeatedly make the same edits with different rationale, is your motivation to censor? you don't necessarily need to give a CCN, you do have microfilm? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::The fact that NRO operate space vehicles and have associated estate and infrastructure isn't a secret. It certainly appears from the available portion of the material that the association with a site and the NRO isn't itself classified, however the source which then associates the site with the location isn't authoritative. Given that none of the sources can be considered authoritative then it's appropriate to use caveats around the assertions being made. You'll note that none of the sources have been removed, I've just reduced the chronic over-quoting and reduced the trivia.
::::::Open source is extremely valuable, although one must realise the limitations, in the same way that sensitive sources inject vulnerabilities into an assessment in their own way.
::::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 20:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::your original criteria "authoritative" is not wikipedia, rather the criteria is verifiability, [[WP:V]]. you have only stopped deleting wholesale, and are now deleting incrementally[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::::It appears clear that you're struggling with the concept of ''verifiable''. Any item of data inserted into the article needs to be ''verifiable''. Verifiability is based on a number of things, but in Wikipedia that is predominantly based around the concept of [[WP:RS| reliability]] of sources. ''Reliability'' in turn depends on publisher, author, corroboration and the use to which the source is put.
::::::::If we consider Bamford, he has some degree of credibility, and his publisher does ''some'' checking of his research, in order to protect themselves. However he is not authoritative, he is an outside observer and his assertions do have a degree of ambiguity about them. It is reasonable when relying on a source such as those written by Bamford to express the degree of ambiguity around his work. He does not speak for the NRO, therefore his assessment of the role and nature of the location is an assertion, a claim, and should be represented as such.
::::::::Similarly the Russian language source, they are certainly not authoritative with respect to the NRO, and in particular the use of the source does not support the assertion you wish to make. All the source is saying with any authority is that the location has a transmit capability, that is derived from the frequency landing authorisation that it is discussing.
::::::::I'll reiterate, I've deleted the trivia, but the substantive sources remained in text, I merely improve readability and made clear the distinction between assertion and supporting source.
::::::::I'll admit that I'm disappointed with your unwillingness to collaborate over this issue, the [[WP:NPA| personal attacks]] are tiresome and there does not appear to be any desire to add to the encyclopedia in a meaningful manner.
::::::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::i dunno, when Bamford says the Russians know about Area 58, and a Russian language prints the location of Area 58, is that confirmation? i'm also dissappointed but not surprised; i remain willing to work with good faith editors which you are not; we may then part adversaries, for we have diametrically opposed notions of the truth.[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::That's original research. You're associating at least two items of data and coming to a conclusion. The Russian language source also caveats around what the location does, so you are basing an assertion on a non-authoritative speculation. That all requires caveating to indicate the degree of scepticism which one must apply to the conclusion.
::::::::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::no, i quote the verifiable sources, and the reader can draw their own conclusions. (2nd time) would you care to answer the question: is that confirmation? Your scholarly journal editing criteria is not wiki: the [[WP:V]] ultimately will prevail. You cannot censor what you cannot control. You, like the ministry of truth, or tyrants anywhere, will be defeated, because the world is watching your actions; they can judge for themselves the ignominy of your choice of duty over honor; you can not handle the ''truth''; this historical enclave of the open skies era will become a museum to open secrets of a bygone age, like [[Corona (satellite)| Corona]]; the world will be a better place for it.[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::Can I suggest that you go away and read the [[WP:MOS| Manual of style]] and the policy statements on [[WP:V| verifiability]], [[WP:RS| reliability]] and [[WP:FRINGE| tinfoil hat liners]] to get an appreciation of how to write in a literate, encyclopedic style which informs the reader, providing a succinct summary of the available material as well as pointers to where to find out more should they wish to do so.
::::::::::::I'd also suggest that you read the policy on [[WP:NPA| conduct]] and request that you focus on discussing the content that we're trying to put together here rather then concentrating on other editors and your presumed understanding of motivation.
::::::::::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 16:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::read that, you might want to read: [[WP:BITE]]; [[WP:DIS]]; [[WP:TEND]]; [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]; [[WP:NOTLAW]]; [[WP:BEANS]], and best of all - [[Security through obscurity]]. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Dogue|Dogue]], considering this line of yours - ''You, like the ministry of truth, or tyrants anywhere, will be defeated, because the world is watching your actions; they can judge for themselves the ignominy of your choice of duty over honor'' should probably go look at [[WP:NPA]], because that whole line, and, in fact, most of your arguments against ALR, are personal attacks.--[[User:Vidkun|Vidkun]] ([[User talk:Vidkun|talk]]) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:a little purple prose for the DOD readers, speaking in their language, there are at least 2: ScreamingEagle, and Signaleer. how many stealth ones are there, i am genuinely curious? given the history of Ufology as a cover for sightings of advanced aircraft[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufology#The_advanced_human_aircraft_hypothesis], a working hypothesis would be that [[security through obscurity]] of the site is ongoing. the problem with the strategy is: it depends upon apathy. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:''most of my arguments, are personal attacks''? - nothing personal, but it's important to express why it is that ALR will not prevail in this conflict. nobody talks about honor like the military, but we see from the example of Shinseki, how he's the exception not the rule. (that is not a personal attack) say it ain't so. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

== Concerns about the article ==

Given the unwillingness to discuss improvements to the article I have a range of concerns that I'd appreciate some consideration of:

*What is the notability of this article. At present there is no assertion of notability, the only substantive point is that this is one of a number of NRO downlink sites. There is nothing distinctive about it.

*What are we trying to say about the site, as articulated in the section above all we seem to be able to say with any authority is that it exists, it has satellite downlink capabilities and it's managed by the NRO. IS there anything else substantive to say?

*What is the purpose of the images in the article, we have one of half of the sign and one of a road intersection with some generic buildings in the background. If the location is a satellite downlink would a shot of one of the radomes not be more beneficial?

*What is the purpose of the section on first Whitehouse use. What do we have to avoid the reader reching the end of the section and asking ''so what''.

*What is the purpose on the section on equipment failures? The section misrepresents the available sources and again fails to leave the reader thinking anything more than ''so what'' at the end of the section''

*What is the purpose of the ''construction'' section. Again the reader is left thinking ''so what'' at the end.

*What is the purpose of the section on procurement law compliance. Again the reader is left asking ''so what'' at the end of the section.

*What is the purpose of the ''anthrax that wasn't detected'' section. Again the reader is left asking ''so what'' at the end of the section.

*The section titled ''government position...'' misrepresents the sources and would tend to be a synthesis of available sources. What is the purpose of the section?

[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

# notability: how does SatInt get from the satellite to the end users? are there some critical communication, dissemination nodes as a part of Intelligence Cycle Management?
# history of site, operations at the site, the changing names of the site
# as Jeff Q says here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Suntag#DCEETA_photo] why poke the tiger, but now that the leaves are off the trees, a radome shot is possible. (btw why do you say "number of radomes" when there are only two in the satellite view?)
# verifiable history, it is a slot in the infobox (is that existential nausea, or is that a personal wretch attack?)
# well, perhaps it was before your time, but Y2K was a big deal, leading to much IT spending, some say it was a hoax, but apparantly not for this installation. (this is a software problem, not equipment)
# construction history: a black program has no oversight of construction (''vis'' the Chantilly HQ controversy), it does show continuing and expanding operations, counting the cars in the lot is an old technique.
# it goes to the 'above the law' attitude of the NRO
# anthrax, it shows they have a separate mailroom from the base. being outside the beltway, perhaps you are unaware of the anthrax angst here, (no unopened mail on capital hill, weeks of delays to mail to certain addresses including this one)
# actually i mirrored this section on the Area 51 section [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51], but better. having reread the NYTimes article, this is not misrepresentation. perhaps what you meant is that i'm using the NYTimes as a stalking horse to present my POV. i would say it is clearly the POV of the verifiable source. caveat the source, don't delete it.
:your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_What%3F so what] criteria is not original: but it is not Wiki. btw, are you a Deletionist? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionist_versus_Inclusionist_Controversy] if so, why not be proud and join the group. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

::Why do you persist in focusing on the editor, not the content? Why must you persist in personal attacks, [[User:Dogue|Dogue]]? Please desist.--[[User:Vidkun|Vidkun]] ([[User talk:Vidkun|talk]]) 16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:::ok fine, why delete rather than edit? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:::let's talk about the content. how is this article's content any different than [[Menwith Hill]], [[Pine Gap]], [[Area 51]]? are you really prepared to argue that they are more notable?
:::i try to focus on the content, but ALR deletes it. let's look at the conduct: deleting material, no additions; calling the verifiable sources ''cruft'', ''unencyclopedic'', ''so what'', ''retch'', ''guuci'', ''articulate speculation'', ''quote dump'', ''trivia''; vague general references to the Style Guide; adding caveats of [[WP:WTA| words to avoid]]; repeatedly making the same deletions without consensus; saying i'm misrepresenting sources, when i am directly quoting them; saying delete all Echelon material; imposing his original knowledge to delete, over the authority of the verifiable source [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

:here's an extended quotation from the NYTimes article, ''in re'' point 9:

Many in Washington are convinced that the problems of overruns and oversight have been magnified by the intense secrecy that has surrounded the N.R.O. since the day it was born. Asked about the reason for such secrecy, a C.I.A. official said: "You know, I can't give you any reason behind it, except that it's part and parcel of the whole satellite question. The decision has been made to maintain the classification, and that's all we can say."

Clearly, one of the main reasons for the secrecy is rooted in a broad principle: To acknowledge the N.R.O. would be to acknowledge the existence of the spy-satellite program, and that the intelligence community has never been willing to do. To its critics, this policy seems illogical. In the early days, when satellite reconnaissance was new and not generally known, there may have been valid reasons for keeping this collection method under heavy wraps. But, the critics say, such is not the case today.

There have been times in the past when the policy seemed on the verge of change. Addressing a gathering at Cape Canaveral on Oct. 1, 1978, President Jimmy Carter acknowledged that the United States uses satellites for photographic intelligence. Except for an offhand remark by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the late 1960's, it was the first time an incumbent President had ever acknowledged the use of spy satellites. Yet Mr. Carter's remark - the result of a decision, according to a senior intelligence official, that ''there would be more gained than lost by the acknowledgement'' - has remained an isolated instance. Under President Reagan, the secrecy is as tight as ever.

''The irony is that the Soviet security and intelligence organization K.G.B. probably knows more about America's spy-satellite operations than all but the few most highly cleared people in the United States. The reason for this is an abominable track record in security on the part of the C.I.A. and the satellite intelligence community as a whole. ''

Within little more than a year after the first KH-11 was launched, the Russians had a complete copy of the satellite's technical manual. It was sold to them in February 1978, for $3,000, by William P. Kampiles, a former C.I.A. employee. Kampiles had walked out of the agency headquarters in Langley, Va., with the manual with less trouble than he would have had sneaking ''Gone with the Wind'' from the public library. He was later found guilty and sentenced to 40 years, but the damage, according to testimony at the trial, was enormous. To the Russians, the manual was invaluable, and left little to the imagination

As if losing one copy of the KH-11 manual was not bad enough, it was revealed at the trial that, out of 350 copies printed, the C.I.A. was inexplicably missing 16 additional manuals - including one signed out to the director. As far as is known, the C.I.A. has never been able to find out what happened to these copies. According to Jeffrey Richelson, an assistant professor at the American University in Washington, the Russians may have gotten additional details on the satellite even before they received the manual. In a recent paper in the Journal of Strategic Studies, Mr. Richelson says that Christopher Boyce, a former employee of TRW convicted in 1977 for selling satellite secrets, gave the Russians 5 to 10 typed pages dealing with a satellite that closely resembled the KH-11.

One view is that the Government's unwillingness to declassify the N.R.O.'s existence and some of its work has to do less with national security than with bureaucratic turf. Daniel Graham, the former D.I.A. director, sees it as follows: "Resistance to change came from the Central Intelligence Agency, and it came on bureaucratic grounds. So long as all of this photography was in a category controlled by the C.I.A., they had the upper hand, and they could say who got it, who didn't get it, and they could play games."

[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

:Thankyou for taking the time to respond, I'm not satisfied that your responses adequately answer the questions, so I'll address each in turn:
:*Notability - You have still given no indication of what makes this site particularly notable in the context of Wikipedia; the topic is a single SGS. In particular you ha=ve done nothing but ask questions, none of which are addressed by the article in it's current form.
:*None of those are particularly notable or substantive information. Sites change names as organisations are re-organised.
:*You still haven't addressed the issue of what the current images are actually for.
:*You still haven't actually addressed the purpose of the section on use in the Whitehouse and in what way it is particularly notable.
:*The section that you persist in suggesting is Y2K related is nothing of the sort. Looking in the sources they talk about the failure of an ATM switch which had previously been identified as problematic. Your assertion in this dialogue is that it was a Y2K problem, but you haven't found a source which explicitly states that. all you're doing is adding a section that says ''kit fails and engineering controls may or may not have worked in this instance''.
:*Again your section on the construction seems to add no value. If you are suggesting this was a ''black project'' then you need to find a source which explicitly states that it was a black project, notwithstanding the general secrecy around the NRO since its inception. You need to find a source which actually says what you want the article to say.
:*Again you need to find a source which says that the NRO sees itself as above the law, and use that as a source. Attempting to use a very trivial example to infer that neither adds anything to the article nor lends credibility to the authorship. As it stands if you were to actually follow the Manual of Style and write the statement, using the source as evidence, you would be guilty of Synthesis which is original research.
:*So you're trying to suggest that a facility within a bigger establishment has it's own mail room, in what way is that significant? Again you are misusing the sources, if you want to make something of the separate mailroom then find a source which discusses it, although I do question the importance of the issue.
:*You still haven't actually addressed the issue of what the purpose of the section is, and merely because it's used on the A51 article doesn't make it appropriate here. The site exists, that does not appear to be at issue, and there appears to be an oblique reference in some kind of information assurance manual. I would still suggest that the section is Synthesis and misrepresentation of the sources. I don't believe that your explanation of your use of the section to represent ''your own position'' adequately addresses the question of its purpose.
:Notwithstanding that, thankyou for quoting from the NYT article. You've now managed to confirm my view that it is of only tangential relevance to this article, given that it talks about breaches in the security around the space vehicles, not the SGS estate, and specifically not the Ft Belvoir location.
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 20:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
# what is your criteria for Notibility? if Mentwith Hill and Pine Gap sigint installations are notable, then why not DCEETA? they seem comparable to me. is there another ImInt ground site? or article?
# cover names, with no overt organizational owner? the names are changed to protect the - ''innocent''?
# what is ImInt imagery used for? is that a different article?
# while i have my concerns about quoting a president in a secret meeting, with few witnesses, it does show how the ImInt are used to curry favor with the CINC, and the use of imagery for arms control, how often are products from somewhere hand carried to the president?
# well quoting from the press conference referenced:

MR. BACON: Dr. Hamre, the deputy secretary of Defense, is here with his Y2K team to bring you up to date on where we stand. He'll make a brief opening statement and then take your questions and rely on his experts for support when necessary. DR. HAMRE: I didn't get that part about needing Nomex before this. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, and I'm glad to have a chance to be with you to report. We will, this afternoon, stand down the operations center that we stood up for year 2000. We didn't have enough significant work to have to do, but we kept it going and it will be this afternoon, I believe, that it stands down. I would like to take this opportunity to especially thank the very senior folks that made such a huge difference in this. Admiral Bob Willard, who you became familiar with during the weekend; Bill Curtis, who was our point man for the entire Y2K effort, working for Art Money and for Marv Langston. Sitting next to him, Pete Verga, who was working the issues with Russia during this period. It was a remarkably successful weekend. As I mentioned to you earlier, we had 2,101 mission-critical systems that we had to repair. Everything worked fine. We did have the one significant event, which I described to you on the 1st. Of our non-mission-critical systems, we had about 4,000, 5,000 of them that we were modifying. Things worked remarkably well. We had just a small handful of problems. Nothing had any operational implication at all, with the exception of the reconnaissance satellite that I mentioned to you on the 1st.

# trivial, but linked to this site. as far as NRO above the law, that article has already been written:

The whole episode was a major humiliation for the NRO, which until 1992 was so secret that its existence was not officially acknowledged. In its very first appearance in an open public hearing, the NRO was obliged to grovel. "We have been negligent, clearly negligent, for not showing the budget breakout for this project," said Roger Marsh, director of the NRO headquarters project.
The disclosure of the secret facility also served as a lightning rod for the wrath and ridicule of Senators and Congressmen. "This is not the first time such a thing has happened," said Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, "nor will it be, I fear, the last.... This is an agency which has lied to Congress before. Egregiously."
"The intelligence community of this government, the CIA in particular," said Rep. Robert Torricelli, "is a government within a government. We are not controlling it, we are not monitoring it, we are not controlling its spending. We are not functioning in our constitutional responsibilities."
"This is the big lie," said Rep. James Traficant, "el supremo fibbo.... I say we should convert that [new NRO building] to a prison and start by locking up these lying, thieving, stealing CIA nincompoops."
In World War I, the chief of German intelligence could still say that "Intelligence is inherently a noble profession." (Der Nachrichtendienst ist immer ein Herrendienst.) But today, the public face of intelligence is represented by bureaucratic bunglers, knaves and fools. In popular culture, every half-wit 'action' movie now seems to feature a corrupt or sadistic intelligence official. The New York Times (8/14/94) even illustrated one its stories on the NRO with a photograph of Maxwell Smart speaking on his shoe-telephone.[http://www.fas.org/sgp/bulletin/sec39.html]

and:

But of all the things that I have discussed tonight, the worst is yet to come. The last bastion of NRO pride and arrogance is their technical performance, which has slowly melted away. The NRO has suffered a shocking decline in the technical performance of its satellites over the past several years. They haven't told you about that because it’s been kept behind those doors.
At an unclassified level, let me describe how serious this is, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Satellites, where the primary mission payload failed a few days after launch. Satellites - where components got so hot that they actually melted causing mission failure due to thermal analysis failures, something that we've known about since the 1960's. Satellites - which after spending billions of dollars in development cannot perform their basic housekeeping functions, which we've been demonstrating again since the 1960's. Satellites - which again, after spending billions of dollars in development, the primary payload does not meet its basic performance specifications. It's the NRO's own version of the Hubble Space Telescope. And that satellite that we spent the extra two hundred million on for the light switch, it had constant power upsets to its computer once it got in orbit. Many satellites never even got launched as they meandered their way through years of technical and program management mismanagement. Yet no one was held accountable.
I can't even describe many more technical disasters, as it would be too revealing. Everything that I just described to you, and much more, was just swept quietly under the rug. And then they have the nerve to beat their chest and make fun of the Air Force and NASA. I say they are a bunch of hypocrites. And I hear that some people are considering sending SBIRS High or Mil Satcom over to be executed by the NRO. All I can say to that is "good luck."
Last but not least, the NRO exhibits an astounding lack of revolutionary innovation to get Al Qaeda. It's not because of a lack of good ideas. They are getting tons of good ideas thrown at them. The overrunning large programs are sucking every possible dollar out of the future cutting-edge projects. What is the NRO's staffs answer to that? "We need more money." Well, maybe they do, because we've got to get the capability somehow, but first I think they need a swift kick in the pants.
So how can we fix the NRO? It's too complex to discuss in the limited time we have available tonight, but I think we should start with accountability. Luckily, we have three newly seated and highly qualified people who can fix the NRO if they will: Secretary Aldridge, Secretary Teets, who we heard from yesterday, and Mr. Fitzgerald. We don't need, please, another commission or another panel or another group of graybeards.
So, I call upon these men tonight and I call upon the NRO's employees. I'm sure a few are in the audience tonight. I call upon you all in the audience tonight. I call upon the space commanders that are here tonight, the Congressional Oversight Committees, and the White House itself and I call on Chairman Walker and the White House - please fix the broken NRO. Tonight our country is at war, our young troops are on a battlefield a half a world away. We would like to show you how our military space systems are helping them win and how we are going to make them even better for the future. We'd like to open that with some words from our commander-in-chief.[http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/thompson.html]

*7 ok, cut the mailroom, it does tend to go to the insular nature of this installation, the false alarm was notable to me, but then i'm inside the beltway, people keep sending powder in the mails (will the next wmd attack be bio?)
*8 the manual of style does not address the amount of quotations, merely how to quote, rather the amount raises concerns about copyright [[WP:COPY]]. there are no hard rules here, stringing quotes does tend to kill the ''hoax'' beast though, don't it. ''Synthesis'', is nowhere in wiki, maybe you could find a reference? again i'm just following where the sources lead me, and the reader can follow my steps, (and reject them if like you, they don't like the outcome) but the wikipolicy of [[WP:V]] has been followed to the letter
*9 it talks about the history of this organization over-classifying, when the Soviets knew all along: that applies to this site as well. you agree it is the POV of the verifiable source? btw, combining two verifiable sources is not original (even if you call it leading the reader by the nose) it would be hard for the author to refute the overclassification, 20 years ahead specifically, he does it generally. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

:*The point with respect to notability is not comparison with other articles, although I think that both MH and PG can be sourced and notability demonstrated. This is supposed to be an article about the Ft Belvoir SGS though and needs some assertion of notability. You want the article, so it's up to you to demonstrate that it deserves to remain.
:*I don't see what you're getting at with continual harping on about cover names. It remains neither notable nor substantive and you still haven't addressed the question.
:*You still haven't addressed the point of what two crap images are for in this article.
:*You still haven't demonstrated any notability around whitehouse use. Each of the Intelligence Agencies are in competition for resources and they all use raw material to beguile politicians. Imagery in particular can be quite effective, politicians love pictures (presumably because words are too much effort) whereas a raw intercept transcript or human source interview report just don't have anything like the same impact. The section says nothing useful.
:*Despite your extensive use of unrelated block quoting I'm still not convinced that the Y2K section is either Y2K related or particularly important. In particular the section you've now quoted above says nothing about whether the specific ATM failure was Y2K related, and the previous discussion demonstrated that in fact it wasn't.
:*I assume that since you haven't addressed the issue of whether this is a black project or not then you have been unable to find a source which states something along those lines. Can we cut the construction section based on that.
:*Again your extensive use of block quoting fails to address the issues, the NRO article is elsewhere and each of the quotes you've used is straightforward political posturing and bitching about the need to keep Intelligence operations confidential. they don't appear to have anything significant to do with the Ft Belvoir location. You may think that the NRO is above the law, however you need to discuss that in the NRO article, not in the article about a single SGS.
:*OK, a bit of an aside, but biological weapons are not ''Weapons of Mass Destruction'', they are on the other hand ''Weapons of Mass Effect'' as the threat of use can be far more effective than actual deployment.
:*The Manual of style talks about the style of an article, how to write something then back it up with sources, not just randomly blob up a few quotations and then leave the reader to try to work out what the author was trying to say. The editorial process is trying to find a way to inform the reader in a literate, concise and meaningful way, with consistent style throughout. The indiscriminate use of randomly collected quotes which may or may not be relevant or appropriately presented is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The guiance on [[WP:NOR| No Original Research]] does contain material on [[WP:SYNTH| synthesis]]. In particular I would suggest that [[WP:V| verifiability]] has been systematically abused by your approach which presents the reader with a random collection of selective quoting, misrepresentation and intellectual fraud to advance [[WP:POV| your personal position]] and lacks inherent balance or communication effect.
:*Again your use of sources is not relevant to this article, if you wish to pontificate about the NRO then do so at the NRO article, not the article of one of the SGSs. The section is synthesis.
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
*1 well, in order to understand what is notable, it is useful to look at what is considered notable on this wikipedia. given that you agree that area 58 exists, why delete quotes from verifiable sources that describes that existence?
*2 the cover names cover the truth of the secret name area 58. one name hasn't changed. i'm still open to the [[forest moon of endor]].
*3 they show the facility? lacking better images they should stay
*4 it goes to the first use of the facility, you are asking when it was used. even if i agree with your comments about ImInt, it is verifiable when and who.
*5 changing arguments? depsecdef links Y2K issues with the site. i agree the ATM is not Y2K if in same source, so i will move to operations section.
*6 inference? you said "As it stands I think that structurally the article is probably: Lead paragraph identifying the site with potential alternate names; Location and construction history; Apparent role." - are you changing your POV? i will add an intro sentence
*7 the NRO's attitude on secrecy affects the reported secret name of this site.
*8 nice argument which you might take up at the [[weapons of mass destruction| WMD]] article:

The term covers several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC), and radiological weapons. Additional terms used in a military context include atomic, biological, and chemical (ABC) warfare and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) warfare.

*9 good reference:

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research.

i would say the references are directly related to the article subject.
*10 you critiqued and deleted the NYTimes article without having read it? it outted the NRO and this installation. seems directly related to me: a ground station is directly related to "spy-satellite operations", even if the example he gives is of satellite technical data. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 16:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Personally I don't see anything wrong with this article. --[[User:Hfarmer|Hfarmer]] ([[User talk:Hfarmer|talk]]) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
*11 "The editorial process is trying to find a way to inform the reader in a literate, concise and meaningful way, with consistent style throughout." We agree
*12 "The indiscriminate use of randomly collected quotes which may or may not be relevant or appropriately presented is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The guiance on [[WP:NOR| No Original Research]] does contain material on [[WP:SYNTH| synthesis]]. In particular I would suggest that [[WP:V| verifiability]] has been systematically abused by your approach which presents the reader with a random collection of selective quoting, misrepresentation and intellectual fraud to advance [[WP:POV| your personal position]] and lacks inherent balance or communication effect."
:We disagree, first reference to [[WP:NOR]]. ''verifiability abused''? creative, but not wiki; ''random quotes'', nonsense, the quotes are directly related to the article subject, (perhaps you mean they present the POV of the author); ''intellectual fraud'', the fraud lies in those who profess to defend us, but who really defend their organizations, who use secrecy to cover up against legal oversight, (and public scrutiny). [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
*13 "unable to articulate credible arguments"
:pla-eese, a 69 kByte talk page?, you don't seem credible to me either (nothing personal)[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 15:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:Gods I'm starting to lose the will to live.
:*What do you assert is notable about this site? At the moment all we have is that it's a Satellite Ground Station operated by the NRO, and we can infer from other information that it operates imagery related space vehicles. What is notable about it? Why might a reader be interested in reading about it?
:*Do you have a source which asserts that the ''name'' of the site is Area 58 and the others are just cover names? Perhaps the real name is the one that's at the front gate and the area number is merely a cataloguing code, similar to a Zip code.
:*The photos are crap, unfortunately they can't be deleted for being crap but if I could establish a way, then I'd use it. If you live locally, go and get some better ones.
:*I would disagree that the citation demonstrates ''first use'' only a use of an overhead image to excite a politician. I would still suggest that you have failed to demonstrate notability of this event, it looks like standard internal politics within the US IC to me.
:*I would disagree with your representation of the quote, and by splitting up the two issues I would suggest that you weaken your argument for inclusion. A single instance of a switch failing is hardly notable. All you're now demonstrating with the Y2K section is that this site complied with US Government policy and had a Y2K team, in the same way that every other US government organisation had at the time. They had a team and they confirmed that ''nothing went wrong'', ''nothing happened''. Again there is nothing of significance to be said.
:*I remain unconvinced that the construction section is needed and I'll reiterate the question, have you anything which says that this is a ''black project'' and the section is therefore significant. We can address when it was opened in a single sentence, not a section.
:*Again you have failed to address my point, if you have issues with the NRO then address them at the NRO article, not this one. None of the quotes that you persist in cluttering the page with appear to be related to this SGS.
:*My point about Bio being a WME was largely an aside and isn't all that relevanbt to this article. I hadn't realised that the FBI had unilaterally redefined it to be completely meaningless.
:*Whilst the individual references may be loosely related to the NRO or the existence of RF emissions I continue to dispute that they can be conjoined in the way that you are seeking to do. Bamford does not discuss the Ft Belvoir site in his article, the Russian language source cannot be considered to be authoritative and the ITU source only confirms the frequencies that are radiated. In trying to construct a thesis from those you overextend the available information.
:*SGSs need not be related to ''spy satellites'' (gods what a childish term) but merely act as an anchor for a wide range of space vehicles. They may support trunk communications, down-linking of surveillance or reconnaissance data, broadcast facilities or similar.
:*As already indicated by myself and others on this talk page I would suggest that you reappraise the guidance on trying to consider the material not the [[WP:NPA| editor]].
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
*1 [[Wikipedia:Notability]]:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

:three independant verifiable sources, you seem to have a stricter view, after all we have articles about Civil War Forts that no longer exist, [[Fort Corcoran]], and museums yet to be built, [[Cold War Museum]].
*2 NYTimes, Inside Defense, and News of Cosmonautics all name DCEETA and Area 58 in the same sentence. the [[Area 51]] article is not a zipcode. but this is refutable, it there any evidence to support the name DCEETA or Aerospace Data Center East as a real agency?
*3 i will, ok done will come back again when there is blue sky, to contrast agains the white radome[[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 19:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
*4 ''standard US IC politics''? the source links the site to a secret meeting in the White House. seems extraordinary to me, i don't see any evidence it is standard, the SOP might be notable as well though.
*5 Hamre said:

It was a remarkably successful weekend. As I mentioned to you earlier, we had 2,101 mission-critical systems that we had to repair. Everything worked fine. We did have the one significant event, which I described to you on the 1st.

the fact that he soft sold the one y2k failure in the DOD, dosn't change the fact that he had to admit it occured, at this location.
*6 what is the significance of ''black project''. it's a site connected to the NRO by verifiable sources, the ongoing construction shows continuing operations. do you want the sources to say ''ooh look at the black project we're working on?'' the black project template is a reminder to use verifiable sources.
*7 the three verifiable sources refer to Area 58, and this site. the NRO persists in classifying the location of Area 58, this site. seems notable to me.
*8 i agree with your aside, but you lost the consensus. the security meme is CBRN (all together). the threats require different actions, which may be lost by the bureaucracy.
*9 Bamford discusses the site. the russian source is authoritative, even if it is speculating:

authoritative -Part of Speech: adjective -Definition: recognized as true, valid
Synonyms: accurate, attested, authentic, authenticated, circumstantiated, confirmed, definitive, dependable, documented, factual, faithful, learned, legit, proven, reliable, righteous, scholarly, sound, straight from horse’s mouth, supported, trustworthy, truthful, validated, verified, veritable

your criteria is not wiki, i don't know if i would say ''trustworthy'', but ''accurate'' definitely, the ITU ''confirms'' what the russian was saying.
*10 ''they may'', nice speculation, sources say what i quoted them, in the article.
*11 i was refering to the subject [[NRO]], but if the shoe fits wear it. you notice nobody lost their job over lying to Congress. we've had an abject lesson in fraud by Mr. [[Madoff]], and what i am writing is nowhere close. i would say that i don't find your editing behavior consistent with what i find elsewhere in wikipedia. you keep saying ''random'': a patchwork is still a work; a coat of many colors is still a coat. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
*12 ALR, i gave you the photo of the sign and radomes, why delete? [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 19:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

**speaking of intellectual fraud, ALR, why do you keep making the same edits, which are disputed on this talk page for reasons, that have no evidence other than your POV?
**1 ''external references, already referenced''? do you have a problem with easy to access links to support this article?
**2 ''location move geo''? deleting a verifiable reference that supports the geo.
**3 ''already linked''? KH-11, under see also
**4 ''delete OR''? deleting a verifiable russian language source. what was original about the section header which you changed.
**5 ''remove trivia'' construction which you previously thought a worthy subject
**6 deleting the NGA logo? do you have any reference for your assertion that this is a facility of NRO alone? for we have one verifiable source that states they both have operations here.
**7 deleting the photos? why when you asked for them. quality isn't much of an excuse. [[User:Dogue|Dogue]] ([[User talk:Dogue|talk]]) 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Area 58

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Capt. Kristin Panzenhagen

Thursday, January 29, 2009

DCEETA says:

dceeta wikipedia comments page deleted

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me