Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Possible nomination of article for FA status in appreciation of Howard C. Berkowitz's work

I confess that I miss User:Hcberkowitz now that he has moved on to Citizendium, where his contributions are as eclectic as they are prolific:[1] Another editor, User:Morethan3words apparently broached the subject of nominating this article for Featured Article status, and Howard replied non-commitally on his talk page: [2]. This article (and the entire set of sub-articles it wikilinks to is so vastly better than it was last Decemeber before Howard took it upon himself to overhaul them that I think it would be a nice tribute to his Wikipedia scholarship if it became an FA. That said, I would not take it upon myself to try to shepherd it through the FA process; I just don't personally want to get involved in the deliberative process of the Wikipedia community. And in his reply to User:Morethan3words, Howard points out a valid downside to the FA review process, i.e., we might have to re-fight all sorts of previously resolved conflicts about content when a new group of editors descend on the article. Still, I think it's worth doing if some activisit editor wants to take it on. I don't even maintain a watchlist, so I couldn't keep up with vandals, trolls and other assorted mischief-makers. Any takers to the idea? Plausible to deny (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally, I would love to see this in FA status, but there are some things that should be done before any nomination, and unfortunately some of these things I just don't have the time for right now. I asked for a peer review, which has since been archived, that you can find at the top of this page. One of the main issues that I think we need to find some concensus on, is size. One of the peer reviewers still says that this article is too massive, and I can go either way on this argument. It is massive, there's no doubt about that, but I'm not sure how much of it we can really cut down further without angering too many people, most of whom want to continue adding to this article (see above two discussions). (Morethan3words (talk) 11:41, 30 June

2008 (UTC))

I truly appreciate the sentiment, but it's really not important to me if the article becomes FA. One of the things that made me reduce my involvement in Wikipedia was a peer review of a largely unrelated article, which I had put up for peer review, hoping to get some help clarifying some hard-to-explain content. It would have been nice to have gotten some additional content, inline or linked.

No review comment addressed any of the things the article needed, in my opinion, to become better. Every comment seemed to address "pillars of Wikipedia", or Manual of Style issues. For the first, I find I really don't agree with some of the pillars, and I simply don't care about compliance with a MOS unless it improves readability.

One of the reasons I don't agree with the pillars is the inability to use experts and the bans against not only original research, but original synthesis. The structural improvements I was able to make in the CIA article, to me, were appropriate synthesis.

I do not believe an article, or series of articles, like this, can have real quality without some agreed-to structure and stability. There needs to be a commitment, for example, that the main page is essentially an index. When people are suggesting putting South Africa-specific unsourced material in the main page, there's a more fundamental problem than the relativey easy problem of spinning off organizational detail article. Ignoring the sourcing is one thing, but when the anon didn't read sufficiently to know there were regional and country-specific articles where that point would belong is a fundamental failure of the process.

I am not willing to participate in a process where one individual, without extensive discussion, splits up a hierarchy of regions into individual articles I consider non-maintainable and also ignoring a very real regional organization of the CIA.

As you put it, it would be likely people might become angry if their pet issues aren't on the front page, whether the issue is UFOs or the Worldwide Terror Matrix or Nelson Mandela. As long as that is happening, it's fruitless to try to have a rational hierarchical structure.

So, I may continue to watch, and, frankly, this note was against my better judgment. Citizendium isn't perfect, and I don't know if it's going to be a viable alternative. At this point, I'm not burning any bridges, but don't expect to see contributions to me under the present structure or (lack of) commitment to organization. For you who like the Wikipedia style of anything-goes, enjoy yourselves. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Having made the initial suggestion, I have to conclude that I agree with Howard, and thank him for briefly chiming into this discussion, despite his better instincts not to. As I said, I don't maintain a watchlist, so I hadn't even noticed the addition of a new sub-heading for Operation Cannonball until I glanced over the entrire article again for length considerations, and to see whether I wanted to try to write a summary of the investigations/commissions main heading and then work on a separate article on that subject in the sandbox to see how much shorter it made the main article. But it really is a somewhat hopeless proposition so long as Wikipedia remains "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit." I didn't really want to put the Operation Cannoball text into a Pakistan-specific article any more than I wanted to add text to an Iran-specific article, but now that the old regional structure is a thing of the past, there was no practical choice. I predict UFOs will re-appear in the main article soon. CIA once employed psychics to predict such things. Plausible to deny (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion that might have "meta-content" issues actually going beyond Wikipedia itself

Peer reviewers still think we're too big. I think present size is open for defense, but one tangible suggestion was "Could the whole 'Internal/presidential studies, external investigations and document releases' section be a sub-article?" What do we think? Any other ways to make it smaller? Should we at all? (Morethan3words (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

That could work -- as long as the rule of moving specifics to subpages is observed for all things. If presidential investigations move to a subarticle, and people fill the new space with a UFO carrying Nelson Mandela on a mission against terrorists, nothing is accomplished. Unfortunately, from my perspective, there are individual contributors who have, over a long period of time, kept increasing the amount of main page content about their pet interest no matter how much detail is in a subpage. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to get on the stick and implement the features previewed in this article:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19526226.200-wikipedia-20-%C3%A2-now-with-added-trust.html

Of course, they might deem you a "trusted editor," but not me. Ruling elites are a bear. Plausible to deny (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that trust score thing seems off (i.e., if you're edits stay, then you get a high score, if they don't, you don't), that seems like it will encourage people to edit in uncontroversial and/or little-known areas of Wikipedia, to get their trust score up (i.e., if I make a whole bunch of edits to pages that nobody's interested in, no matter how inaccurate or proposterous, my trust score goes up because nobody bothers to revert them). Too easily manipulated, if you ask me, and can be too easily used in an argument (my trust score is 35, while yours is 20, therefore I'm right).

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. Well, I certainly understand that protecting this page from POV edits is not going to be easy, or ever end, for that matter, but that doesn't really answer the question of what we should do with it now. I'm happy to work with Plausible, and Howard if he wants, to move some sections into new subpages to try and reduce this thing a little more. Another possible avenue is just to make some simple edits to make sentences more direct and concise (I haven't read the article carefully enough to really know how necessary this is, but in my experience it's always possible. Hemingway once said "if I'd had more time, I would have made it shorter", I figure the same can apply here), that might help some. If Plausible is up for it, let's start looking at sections that might be more appropriate as new articles, and maybe play with some text to see if we can be more concise without losing content. Any objections? (Morethan3words (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure whether I'd call one serious problem "POV edits". Some contributions on CIA-related matters are perfectly relevant to the CIA, but, if there is a rational subpage structure, they belong on a subpage, not the main article. Over time, I've observed that some contributors, who have been asked to put their contribution on the appropriate subpage, or had their text moved there, perhaps with a brief and appropriate link to the subpage, continue to put their pet issues on the main page.

Creating subpages is great if people use them. The reality, however, is that some contributors refuse to do so. Also, for a subpage structure to be useful, it has to be well known. The navigation box can be of some help, but I do not believe that new-topic subpages should be created or put into the navigation box, unless there is discussion and consensus either on the main CIA page, or on the subpage that would be the parent of the new "sub-sub-page".

Oh, there are times when spawning a subpage, within a strictly hierarchical context (e.g., an Iraq or Iran subpage of the Middle East/South&Southwest Asia regional subpage, or Vietnam under the Asia-Pacific subpage), is not unreasonable, as long as it is clearly linked from the regional level — the regional level gives important information about transborder issues in an area. When an overnight change creates over 100 new country articles, without consensus that is a good thing, I found that unmaintainable. The day after that happened, I was about to post some information about cross-border issues in the Horn of Africa, but the new structure made it necessary to put the same information into several country articles. I find that unmaintainable and will not contribute within such a structure, certainly when there was no broad-based discussion of the potential problems that creates.

So, sure, there can be size reduction with subpages, but unless the subpage structure is respected, resistance is futile. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As usual, I agree with Howard. A "rational" sub-page hierarchy of articles, that is obvious and intuitive to both readers and editors of Wikipedia, is essential. I felt really, really guilty about adding a paragraph of new text to the main article about "outsourcing" after all Howard had done to fight bloat. Plus, it wasn't totally CIA-specific, being more of an IC-wide observation, but after looking over the entire IC set of articles, this really seemed the most logical place to insert it, despite my misgivings about contributing even one new paragraph to overall length. Tim Shorrock has just published an informative new book on the subject, and he has collaborated extensively with R.J. Hillhouse, who was already cited at length in this article, so I worked it in as best I could. Plausible to deny (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a problem that is much, much worse now that the Director of National Intelligence, not the Director of Central Intelligence, is the Head (censored) What Is In Charge. As it is, various people would say the CIA, for example, made deals with Nazi war criminals -- at a time when CIA didn't exist and Army Intelligence actually did it (yes, sometimes CIA didn't object later).

I literally don't know how best to proceed about U.S. intelligence going forward, as CIA isn't literally central any longer. There are also the persistent reports (Seymour Hersh especially) that the Bush/Cheney Administration is bypassing Congressional oversight rules for CIA covert activities, handing them to the military special operations people and using a loophole for "intelligence preparation of the battlefield."

Nevertheless, someone has to watch out for the Militant Fundamentalist Penguins. We say "Crusades" isn't very popular in the Middle East, but how does the Great Seal of the United States sound if you're seal prey?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that the 2004 re-organization of the IC causes problems for editors, probably including those individuals who edit Intellipedia. ("You work for who? State your name, and who is your master?") Even as a volunteer - but conscientous - Wikipedia editor, it is very challenging to work against what you recognize as your own systemic biases, as you describe in your excellent article on cognitive traps for intelligence analysis. I have no illusions about Wikipedia, regarding either the people who edit it or the people who read it. Seymour Hersh is frequently criticized for his extensive use of anonymous sources, and in some specific instances, I think that criticism is justified, but you (or anybody) can't use a specific instance(s) of mis-attribution or poor sourcing to discount an individual's entire corpus of lifetime work.

It is decidedly un-egalitarian and a violation of Wikipedia's "political correctness," but all editors are quite obviously not created equal. In editing these articles, it is a distinct help to have read James Mann's "Rise of the Vulcans, Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine," James Risen's "State of War" and Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" and "State of Denial," no matter what your individual critical opinion of those books might be. To edit conscientously, you have to be able to deconstruct elaborate historical timelines of events, sometimes based on nothing more than completely open source information. Washington Post intelligence beat reporter Dana Priest has said in her excellent chats with readers (archived on the Post's website), that she is increasingly dissuaded from a conspiratorial viewpoint she never really subscribed to anyway about pre-election military moves against Iran, for the simple reason that we'd probably be looking at $10/gallon gasoline within two weeks, and I agree with her. The time window between November 5, 2008 and January 20, 2009 is more problematical, particularly since it all depends on what happens on the first date.

The fact that the imminently level-headed Robert Gates is a former DCI, back when it actually was DCI and not DCIA, is somewhat encouraging in countering suspicions that a certain former Defense Secretary who will go unnamed might try some sort of end-run around the laws requiring Conressional notification for covert CIA actions. Read closely the minority report of the 1987 Iran-Contra committee; the unnamed DefSec actually told reporters to read that innovative document when Risen and Eric Lichtblau first broke the warrantless "wiretapping" story. Admiral William Fallon says that his early retirement as Centcom commander was totally voluntary, but his comments in that Esquire interview to the effect that the last thing the over-stretched U.S. military needs is a war in Iran to go with its matching bookends in Afghanistan and Iraq kind of makes you wonder, does't it?

At any rate, it's good to have your input back here on the talk pages, although I well understand your desire to stay above the article-editing fray. I am hopeful (in apparent contradiction of all the factual evidence that I have observed about Wikipedia) that what gets said in this discussions might actually have a benificial effect to the articles themselves. I have seen that Larry Sanger has personally helped edit some of the articles you've developed on Citizendium. Think Jimmy Wales might read this disussion, or have one of his trusted admins bring it to his attention? Plausible to deny (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you are the only other editor active in recent discussions on this page, Morethan3words, I would encourage you to simply fight the aforementioned article "bloat" for the time being. Maintaining no watchlist (simply to avoid the sort of perpetual aggravations that Howard articulates), I am in no position to do so. If you read the article I linked to above closely, you can intuit that the algorithm Luca De Alfaro is developing could easily be tweaked to establish "trust ratings" of editors within specific categories of articles. If someone who had become a "trusted editor" within intelligence-related articles (perhaps you, for instance), simply had the ability to preview the edits made by "non-trusted" editors within this hierarchy of articles, it would be an enormous advance for Wikipedia, and might lure back justifiably disenchanted editors like Howard as well as persuade cynical editors like me to use a watchlist. If someone has built up their "trust rating" by making a number of un-reverted edits to articles about Britney Spears or Tila Tequila, that would not necessarily enable them to make an immediately-visible edit to this article.

It wouldn't solve all the problems, like the overnight spawning of the "CIA Activities in Antarctica" series of articles, or the creeping encroachments of the Bin Laden Issue Station back into the main article, but it would help. Until Wikipedia really does something to improve its basic model, like implement the changes hinted to in that article, maintaining quality truly is a Sisyphean task. I liked Howard's closing reference to the Borg. Plausible to deny (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares...

While I've taken a break from active editing, I still periodically look at my watchlist. As many of you know, I and others have tried to keep the size of the main CIA article manageable, without actually losing any date because all relevant content was moved to a hierarchy of subarticles. (comment;Do you mean "data", not date?````) I notice that yet again, Frank Freeman has started expanding al-Qaeda related content on the main page, after repeated entreaties to put that material in CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities and region/country-specific articles. None of his content has ever been deleted, just moved to an appropriate subpage. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just reclaimed two (or is it four?) bytes in Wikipedia's SQL database by removing a stray carriage return at the EOF marker for that section. Other than that obviously token effort, I can propose no solutions. Plausible to deny (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Today, I notice that his edits completely removed the link to CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities. I did not stop editing because I believed there was only one "party line". I did not stop editing because I thought a hierarchy of articles, on a complex subject, was unworkable.

In large part, I stopped editing because I was very tired of trying to get consensus on a useful structure, and, when consensus seemed to exist, having any of a number of people move content to the appropriate subarticle.

I am grateful to the people that expressed appreciation of what I was trying to do. While I don't know if "revert war" is quite the term for what Mr. Freeman seems to be doing, it is an example of the constant "push one's own issue" approach that I got very tired of maintaining.

If anyone thinks my past ideas have been useful, I'd encourage you to try to resolve this constant creeping of al-Qaida in Brooklyn material onto the main article. If I'm the only person that cares about having a manageable lead article, then, clearly, it is inappropriate for me to impose my views on a community. I'll be curious to see if there really is any community interest here.

Thank you.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, do care about the quality of this article that you labored so mightily to improve and maintain, Howard. Welcome back, in however limited a role as a Wikipedia editor you deem prudent. As I previously noted, I maintain no watchlist, and have been 'off the grid' of the Internet for the past fortnight as a covert Company 'NOC' on the Above-Top-Secret CIA Activities in Antarctica project. Wish I could tell you the operation's cryptonym, but it's highly need-to-know information. Ever try to pay off a tribal penguin warlord to perform the bidding of a classified Presidential Finding? It is damned hard work for a civilian volunteer who is a G-8 on the federal employee pay scale. Medical insurance is good, though, and I need it to treat my frostbite. Plausible to deny (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged war crimes culpability

Silly me. And I thought there was an entire article, CIA transnational human rights actions, that was intended to discuss concerns in detail, give historical background, and compare and contrast trends. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I moved the new information from this section into the article above, with the citation, and deleted it from this main article. if NYCJosh has an issue with the move, please discuss here. (Morethan3words (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, here is the section I added, which was deleted from the present article:

In 2007, Red Cross investigators concluded in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’’s interrogation methods for high-level al Qaeda prisoners constituted torture which could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a the book ““Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals,”” by Jane Mayer a journalist for The New Yorker.

According to the book, the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross found that the methods used on Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda figure captured by the United States, were ““categorically”” torture, which is illegal under both American and international law. A copy of the report was given to the C.I.A. in 2007. For example, the book states that Abu Zubaydah was confined in a box ““so small he said he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position”” and was one of several prisoners to be ““slammed against the walls,”” according to the Red Cross report. The C.I.A. has admitted that Abu Zubaydah and two other prisoners were waterboarded, a practice in which water is poured on the nose and mouth to create the sensation of suffocation and drowning.

The war crimes allegations come from a distinguished source (Int'l Committee of the Red Cross) and are a whopper of a charge. I appreciate its includion on the anncilary article to which it was added. However, I think it would be hard to justify not including such findings on the main article for the CIA. In addition, from an institutional perspective, such findings raise the interesting and important issue of the CIA potentially incriminating the president. The opposite of the "plausible deniability" principle that the CIA works so hard to uphold. This effect of the Geneva Conventions and other laws against war crimes is worth noting for itself and is well illustrated in this case. --NYCJosh (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If these allegations are true, I in no way defend them, although I can think of worse human rights abuses. The issue here is why they must be detailed, rather than clearly linked from, on the main page. If there is a pattern of abuses, it will be more clear when coupled with other events.

Believe me, I thought I had given up completely on editing in this area, and still am not prepared to do anything on the articles, unless there is some consensus that the topic is not manageable unless people will discipline themselves to look at the main page as one of definitions, organizational background, as an index to other issues. You have a human rights issue. Someone else has a UFO issue. Yet another person has an issue with support, in the U.S., to what became al-Qaeda. Where is the line drawn, or is the main page doomed to grow constantly? Is what was done to Abu Zubadayan worse that what was done to Olson or Nosenko? Why? Why not?

As long as there are tightly written but clear links, I honestly do not see the reasons that the ultimate reader is not well served by following liks.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

When there is a new revelation that is important for the topic, the article must be changed or else it soon becomes stale and irrelevant. As to length of the article, I find I have to add detail when I make contributions because deletionists will tend to attack the contribution as unsupported if I just summarize, no matter how accurate the summary. But I would have no problem with a slightly shortened contribution provided the key information was there.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due caveats that I've stopped active editing because I became too tired of fighting edit wars, I don't know if you'd consider me a deletionist or not. I do believe strongly that the main article of a complex set needs constant maintenance to keep it current, and there is long-term information, such as oversight committees, that I'd happily see move -- but not deleted.

As long as I see people assuming there willl be deletion, and going WTH, I'll put it on the main page, the task, to be, becomes hopeless. Assume that you put a sentence or two on the main page to say there was new material in the human rights sub-article, and you put the details in the subarticle. I'd only support deletion in the latter place if there was no substantial sourcing and the material was questionable. If there was deletion in the subarticle, with no discussion and no specific source challenges, I'd fight it there. But as long as the tendency is to keep putting details on the home page, no, I'm not very sympathetic.

WP isn't CNN, to be accurate to the moment. I wasn't being facetious when I asked what your human rights example did and did not have in common with the Olson and Nosenko cases -- if other, non "WoT" questionable interrogations and detentions aren't integrated with the recent material, I worry about POV pushing.

Nevertheless, that's my discounted two cents, because I'm not even going to try to fix material unless I see a reasonable consensus to keep things non-POV and accurate, for which a community can form and support -- see the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The piece I added discusses allegations of War Crimes. Thus the CIA may have incriminated senior US officials in War Crimes through its abuses. The term "War Crime" does not currently appear in the CIA article. Thus this issue is "new." It is not just a "human rights" issue.

I don't know your edits well enough to decide whether you are a "deletionist" and that issue would appear to be irrelevant to the present discussion.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. There is, for example, an article on U.S. intelligence (not CIA, because some of the things happened before there was a CIA) collaboration with Nazi and Japanese war criminals. That article does, in fact, have material that indicates the U.S. was complicit, at the least, of assisting in getaways.

But, you're right, it's not relevant to the current article. If you had wanted to create a 10-page article on CIA implicating Americans in war crimes, and had a sentence linking to it from the main article page, I might have applauded. If, however, you want to dump more than a link into the oversize main page, that doesn't fit any rational idea I have of editing, and you won't learn more about my edits because I won't be making any. I prefer a real-name contribution environment, but I thought I might at least see if anyone here was interested in improving article quality. Have a nice day. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't believe your post is responsive to what I wrote. I don't want to waste space repeating. Your personal opinion as to what the article should look like (basically a series of links with very little text) carries no weight unless supported by WP rules. In fact, that's not what most WP articles look like nor should they.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider this excerpt from a Thursday, July 10, 2008 public online chat by Washington Post national security/intelligence community beat reporter Dana Priest to be responsive to your inquiry:

"Yonkers, N.Y.: What are the odds that there will be criminal consequences for members of the Bush/Cheney administration in foreign courts in the coming years? In a similar fashion, doesn't Kissinger have to be careful planning his foreign travel?

Dana Priest: I can see that happening in Italy, stemming from the CIA abduction case there, if it weren't for the fact that Berlusconi is back. Doubtful elsewhere, but as these cases of once-detained citizen (sic) make their way through the courts in Europe, it still could happen."

You can read the entire transcript of that specific public online chat at the address below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/06/26/DI2008062602067.html

You might consider bookmarking (in your web browser that is, if you are interested in IC-related subjects) the link at the end of this sentence to the entire archived digest of all of Priest's past Washington Post online chats with readers:[3] Plausible to deny (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another discussion about overall main article length, what's included, what's summarized and wikilinked to external articles, etc.

Josh, I think what Howard and Plausible are trying to point out is that, from the standpoint of those of us who have worked on this main article for quite some time now, we have been forced to make some very difficult decisions about what kinds of information can make it into the main article (and we do not claim to have been successful at that yet, as this is still an ongoing process, even 6 months into it). The reason for this is not solely because of the UFO discussions so often belittled in in the previous discussions, but quite simply because of the mountain of information available that meets Wiki criteria for information that "should" be included in an article. If we were to allow all of the information that meets wiki criteria, or even all of the information that we can find a consensus to be "important" to understanding the CIA, we would end up with an article that not only could not be read by anyone except the unemployed, but would not be able to be loaded by all but the most capable browsers on the internet.(Morethan3words (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

I feel compelled to quibble with you on a minor, literal point of what you just wrote, Morethan3words. While the old 300K pre-Howard article was painful to load in the "Pocket" Internet Explorer browser on my "3-G" hand-held Windows Mobile 6 device (Opera Mobile renders any web page, large or small, much better and faster), "browser breaking" is not the foremost reason for keeping this, or any other single Wikipedia article brief. The quest is for clarity of presentation.

If you have a complex, detail-rich article subject with a long history (let's just take the "War on Terror" as an example), a concise main article (which can still be quite comprehensive), linked to many sub-articles that go into greater historical depth and detail than the text suited for inclusion in an introductory article is the only logical way to approach such material.

But it was really your comment about ending up with "an article that not only could not be read by anyone except the unemployed" that really motivated me to sit down at the keyboard this morning. Although some Wikipedians have what I consider to be an over-inflated sense of the importance of "The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit," don't underestimate the reach and potential influence of Wikipedia, or any article on it, including this one on CIA.

I would hazard a guess that is read regularly or semi-regularly by intelligence agencies of other countries, as well as many members of the so-called "MSM". And despite all of the conspiratorial goofiness that goes on in Wikipedia generally, and this article, specifically, I would wager money that the real CIA has at least one employee or two who keeps all article about the agency they work for in a Wikipedia watchlist. I wouldn't consider them very "intelligent" if they didn't. I would also wager money that there is a strict Company policy about making any edit to Wikipedia that was not just a typo correction or clarification of a fact in some agency employee's area of expertise. Other than that, I would bet that there is a "hands off Wikipedia" directive floating through the hallways at Langley, as well as an occasional chuckle if there is truly creative vandal or troll or mischief maker who scrawls his or her street poetry on CIA's Wikipedia chalkboard before it gets reverted by another editor. All just speculation on my part, of course. Plausible to deny (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has made the argument that the information you have provided is not important, it most certainly is important, and that's why we have preserved it in the relevant article. It's just that, at the current moment, we are loathe to let any new information into the main article until we have found a consensus on the best way to bring this article into a leaner state. I'm sure the editors involved thus far would be more than happy to have your assistance and input in helping us make this article shorter and more to the point. (Morethan3words (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

I did not study the artice in depth with a view to making it more succinct, as perhaps some others did. However, to give just two example, the article has a screenfull (on my monitor, normal font) on the 1949 Dulles-Jackson report, and over a screenfull on the 1956 Bruce-Lovett report. There reports are important, but certainly a paragraph or two on each with a link to an article on each subject would appear to suffice. In the meantime, are you saying that a brief discussion of war crimes culpability and how the CIA might have incriminated senior administration officials therefor is not warranted in the main article? BTW, the article to which my contribution was supposedly transferred, CIA transnational human rights actions, makes no mention of war crimes as of this writing. I am beginning to think Plausible has a point when he surmises that there may be Agency plants here. As shown by independent studies (I can't cite the NY Times article date off the top of my head, government agencies and major corporations have officially unaffiliated contractors who monitor selected WP articles to avoid PR damage.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I never wrote anything about "Agency plants." I was about to start riffing on a lyric from Bob Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues," but I'll spare everybody (myself included). As for summarizing the sections about various Congressional and administrative investigations that marked some sort of historical watershed(s) in how CIA went about trying to fulfill its very vague charter purposes from 1947, read the discussion above on this same page. Nobody seemed to dispute my notion that it was a "Sisyphean task" for Wikipedia. Plausible to deny (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is not the first time people have suggested the CIA is making edits to its own pages. Personally, I never really thought it was relevant, and to be honest I always kinda figured the CIA would have better things to do than edit Wiki. Although there's no real way to prove one way or the other on a CIA policy with regard to Wiki.

And thank you, Plausible, of course that's true, this article will (and should) be long no matter what we do with it. I was simply trying to point out that, the simple "relevance and citation" requirements provided by Wiki standards is not enough to keep this page from getting too massive. The very fact that the number of books and articles on the CIA and the IC in general is enough to fill entire libraries means that we are hard pressed to make decisions as to how much of it belongs in the main article.

Josh, I was definitely not arguing that "a brief discussion of war crimes culpability and how the CIA might have incriminated senior administration officials... is not warranted in the main article". I was merely trying to point out that we hesitate to allow any new material into the main article when our primary concern right now is with making it shorter. This is not to say that some general statements regarding this issue, including the term war crimes, will not make it into the "final" version, just that we need to work some things out about this article before it does. Furthermore, if you would like to take it upon yourself to edit CIA transnational human rights actions, I'm sure we would welcome your efforts.

I also want to thank you for your comments with regard to '49 and '56 reports. If others are okay with cutting these down and moving details to relevant articles, I would encourage you to do so. (Morethan3words (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Also, just for fun and so Josh can see how far we've come on this, a little blast from the ugly past [4]. If you don't want to read the whole long article, just keyword search for my username to figure out what I'm talking about. Ugh. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

I don't think we should or can stop all additions to the article until we reach the blessed day when the article is succinct and perfect in all other respects. WP is a work in progress and such an approach would have the effect of shooting ourselves in the foot because a lot of good contributions could be lost and never posted. WP rules do not contemplate preventing posting of info that everyone recognizes is relevant and important until there is consensus about the length of OTHER portions of the article.

Plausible, I did not intend to put words in your mouth.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I assume I have answered adequately and I can re-post? Please don't respond with previously responded to objections.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think the point is that the information is already provided in a sub-article, which is referenced in the main article. The contribution, as previously provided, better belongs in the sub-article in question. I am not arguing the information should not be included at all, I am arguing in this case that it already is included, and the decision is only whether or not this one particular report deserves its own full explanation in the main article. Howard and myself seem to both argue that it does not, I'm not entirely certain exactly what plausible's position is, but it did not seem overly supportive either. If you can provide an argument as to why this report seems more important than, for example the reports on Olson or Nosenko, beyond a simple "this is more recent" type argument, we may be more open to that. (Morethan3words (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Subhead to reset margins

First, I have absolutely no problem with the details of some of the past investigations and studies going to a sub-article linked to the main article, as long as the content is not lost. The key points that do belong in the main article, besides links, are to establish that the original legislation was inadequate, and some of the historic improprieties in the 1947-1952 (and slightly later) period came precisely because OPC was really out of control. In like manner, some of the protection of Japanese and German war criminals -- Ishii still makes me furious -- happened before the CIA existed.

As not too much of an aside, that latter point has broad relevance. When I wrote articles on U.S. involvement with Nazi and Japanese war criminals, I explicitly did not title them "CIA involvement", because a number of the deals were struck by Army Intelligence in 1945-1947, before the CIA even existed. Other things before the "Directorate of Plans" existed, into the early fifties, also need to be seen as a lack of oversight -- if Wisner didn't like what the DCI said, he could go to State or Defense until someone gave him permission.

Another aspect is that some of the questionable operations did not initiate in the CIA, but at White House level, under presidents of different parties. For example, it's pretty well established that the assassination attempts against Castro came from Robert and John Kennedy, mostly in that order. Whether someone in CIA should have refused or gone public is a quite different matter, to which I have no simple answer. There were some questionable operations in Africa and Asia that originated during the Eisenhower administration. MKULTRA, in contrast, was clearly CIA initiated and should never have happened.

Today (and for the last couple of years), we have the problem that some functions previously under CIA are now under the DNI, and other functions (including covert action) may be under DoD. CIA is not synonymous with U.S. intelligence, and, going forward, I don't know the best way to handle this. For example, the National Intelligence Council is in the ODNI, no longer reporting to a function (DCI) that no longer exists. To cite a "CIA NIE" after the ODNI was established is nonsensical.

I haven't gotten into the meat of the current war crimes issue, but there is a difference between "may have implicated" and, as in the case of Barbie, "a competent court determined". For that matter, the Valerie Plame Wilson matter again had a lot more specifics than "may have". It's questionable if speculation belongs in Wikipedia at all, but, if there are allegations, I see those as legitimate topics for an article about the progress in the matter, but not something that merits space in a large article.

Oh -- and Wikipedia has quite a number of guidelines about article size. Somehow, people managed to cover, oh, the Second World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, the American Civil War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict without having everything on a main page. To insist that a page can't be thoroughly annotated links conflicts with the basic principles of web design, not Wikipedia rules. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why "Olson" and "Nosenko" are the standard that have to be surpassed to be worthy of inclusion in the main article. I am sure as soon I mention points of distinction, someone will object that the distinctions are insufficient or provide other standards that must be surpassed (i.e. other important chapters of CIA history that were earlier decided by some group of editors to be unworthy for inclusion in the main article). Instead, I have identified two sections of the main article, the 1949 and 1956 reports, each of which I believe take up far more space than is justified given their relative importance. I.e. if an exact off-set is required for inclusion, then a few lines "taken away" from each of them would be more than sufficient for inclusion of my contribution and such an "exchange" would be amply justified given the sections' relative importance.

As for Howard's discurses on non-CIA operations and on what operations he thinks the CIA should or should not have undertaken, with respect, I fail to see the relevance here. I do agree with Howard that there are many WP articles that cover large topics (imagine that, larger, more volumious, even than the subject of the CIA) and of course we have to make decisions on what gets in the main article and what goes into sub-articles.

In this case: (1) One of the historic and preeminent organizations on the treatment of prisoners, the Int'l Comt of the Red Cross, has found that the CIA's interrogations methods constituted war crimes. That's huge! Not just criminal behavior, not just some country with vested interests making allegations but a preeminent organization with experts making a finding after an in depth investigation. Further, it's not a duplicative example because no other part of the article mentions war crimes at all. (2) This Red Cross finding implicates (i.e. provides the factual basis for criminal culpability) of senior US officials, including White House officials, who approved the torture policy (under well established US and international law principles). This too in not duplicative because there are no examples in the article of CIA actions legally implicating US officials. It thus serves as an important counterpoint to the "plausable denial" rule, elsewhere discussed.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you fail to see the relevance. Good-bye. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to NYCJosh: I haven't made a Wikipedia post since January 5th (be sure to check out all of my contributions [5] going back to last summer to confirm that this is true), but I feel compelled to interject something here. I made a lot of contributions to the main CIA article about controversial detention, interrogation and rendition policies under the Bush/Cheney administration (the policies come out of the White House, and are not originated at CIA headquarters in Langley). Once again, check my contributions to confirm this fact - [6] And yet, I myself brought up the notion that none of it really fit into a main, single overview article on the agency. Click the link at the end of this sentence to read the relevant discussion that I initiated last year on that topic:[7]

I really think that Howard C. Berkowitz is "correct" in his interpretation of what Wikipedia "is" and "is not," or at least "should" be and "should not" be. Which is why Howard now writes for Citizendium, and why this is my first (and possibly last) Wikipedia post since January 5th. Whoever said maintaining article quality on Wikipedia is a Sisyphean task nailed it, IMHO. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Question ; Would it help to have a section headed "The CIA in popular culture" ? There are many culturally significant aspects of the agency and the way it is percieved by popular culture. Films, books, music, and even art make references to the shadow world of secret agencies and the spies that work for and against the west. Possibly a distraction to the main thrust of the article, but judicious editing could allow a paragraph .Thanks, wikipedians.Ern malleyscrub (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-CIA non sequitur

Normally (a term in need of better definition), I would not post a link to humor about Wikipedia on the discussion page associated with the main article on the Central Intelligence Agency, but I know Howard C. Berkowitz "watches" this page, because he wrote most of it, and he is a published author whom life has chosen to short-change in the fame category, in my not-so-humble opinion. So I put the link below here to bring a smile to your face, Howard, and goodness knows how many other people. Write back any time. Like I said in my last post script, Gmail really does put some weird Google AdSense text advertisements in the right-hand column of my screen when we correspond about IC-related matters.

http://www.wired.com/print/techbiz/people/magazine/16-08/pl_brown

Plausible to deny (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Section "Revealed CIA"

I think this section is stating without enough "neutrality" that "At the same time there are the number of the online advices of how to protect yourself (especially if you are a moslem) from the CIA: http://moslemonthewar.livejournal.com/" In this site there a number of quite controversial statements. I think that the controversial nature of the site should be mentioned in the article. One statement as an example: "google is the company established by the cia" ... have a look for more yourself! ---vd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.127.117 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the whole section, clear example of WP:QS. (Morethan3words (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

BTW, I did actually go to the site above, I particularly like the idea about using trained "delphins" to transport drugs from Mexico to the US ;-) (Morethan3words (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Revealed: Actual photo of IP 213.135.123.19

Thanks for the picture. Is that the official CIA headress?

Hi NYCJosh,

IP 213.135.123.19 is from Russian Federation(RU) in region Eastern Europe.

This IP and variants IP 83.146.64.203 and 83.146.64.204 (all from Russia) have been used to repeatedly post the same paragraph which purports to give names of CIA employees, citing an article in Russian for the list of names. (The article doesn't actually report those names.) Let's consider some possibilities:

• About the names: Fake or real?
• About the tripled-headed IP editor: 12-year-old's prank? Politically-motivated individually-acting adult? Russian government employee, hard at work?

What are your feelings about each these possibilities?

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article cited does not support the names listed then that should be the end of the discussion.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether posting real or fake names of current CIA employees is something that should be allowed to stay even in the talk page. While we've been joking around the names have been sitting there for days.

Erxnmedia (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Allowing it to stay or not is almost irrelevant, if the names are real and they somehow manage to make it to this site at all, then the individuals involved have far more serious security concerns than the length of time it appears there. My only concern with the material was the sheer absurdity of it all, any site that mentions trained "delphins" and RC cars to transport drugs across the US border with Mexico gets my veto every time. (Morethan3words (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Publishing the names of alleged CIA employees, be it on Wikipedia or in Robert Novak's syndicated newspaper column, has very real security consequences, and not just for the individual persons so named, whether correctly or incorrectly:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Plame_affair#Possible_consequences_of_the_public_disclosure_of_Wilson.27s_CIA_identity Plausible to deny (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Being Bold, can we live with it?

Okay, I finally had a moment to go through and make some of the changes that we'd been talking about. I moved the presidential reports, etc. to their very own article, and have elaborated on a few sections that were missing any kind of explanation (namely the War Criminals section and the Drug Trafficking section). I've also added a section that I hope summarizes the CIA transnational human rights actions article. NYCJosh, you'll see I even made a direct statement about the Red Cross report, using your wording, so I hope that is a satisfactory compromise. If you are unhappy about the detail of this report as provided in the CIA transnational human rights actions article, please feel free to edit that article.

I by no means claim that these changes constitute exactly what we were all thinking, and if any of you wish to amend my work in any way, I encourage you to do so. Cheers, (Morethan3words (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

I just cleaned up your work a little. Since you "watch" this article (I have no Wikipedia watchlist, and my blood pressure has improved, partially as a result of subjecting myself to less pointless aggravation), try to keep people from filling up the space you have reclaimed by inserting mention of Nelson Mandella being borne about in a CIA-sponsored UFO (they deny them, of course) on missions against terrorists. - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency#A_discussion_that_might_have_.22meta-content.22_issues_actually_going_beyond_Wikipedia_itself

Plausible to deny (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaner, again

I'm not sure if Howard and Plausible are still watching this page, but I was reading the article again and was thinking that we could also move the section on the organization of the CIA into its own article and leave a more brief discussion of it here. The current discussion of it is quite lengthy and intricate, and certainly more than enough information for its own article, but I wanted to raise the idea here before I make any move. Any objections?

If not, I will go ahead and make that move, clean the article a little more, and then I'm thinking we can go ahead with FA nomination. I know Howard and Plausible are not overly excited about the prospect, but I think the article is in pretty good shape, thanks almost entirely to Howard, and frankly I think it deserves to be amoungst Wiki's top articles, even if we have to change some organizational structure a little and fight some rather awkwardly bothersome battles.

If no objection comes in the next week or two I will go ahead with the above. (Morethan3words (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't watch this (or any) Wikipedia discussion page, but I just happened to read your recent comments, and endorse your efforts. It isn't that I'm "not overly excited" about the Featured Article review process, I just don't want to get involved in it personally, like I said last June 28th at the top of this page. I share Howard's reservations that many past, resolved editing disputes would have to be effectively re-fought once a new set of Wikipedia editors with their own personal biases (not a criticism, just an ackowledgement that everyone has personal biases of some sort, myself included) start picking the article apart for political correctness. Whatever the latest news might be at any specific moment about CIA's role in Bush/Cheney administration interrogation policies, it does not belong in this main article, IMHO. Give yourself some credit for your own good work here, (Morethan3words). I don't know if Howard pays any attention to it any more or not, but the world is a richer place for all of his past efforts on Wikipedia. Plausible to deny (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Credibility

There have been allegations that the CIA is losing its credibility not just in the U.S. but also worldwide. South Bay (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Allegations" by whom? Likewise, "credibility" with whom? Wikipedia article discussion pages are generally to be used only to discuss the content of the articles with which they are associated, not as a general forum for discussing the topic of each article. Plausible to deny (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe he may be referring to the fall out resulting from the discovery of either NSA or FBI wiretapping/domestic spying activities that were ::discussed on such shows as Countdown with Keith Olbermann as shown here: Keith Olbermann on Youtube

I don't it was the CIA though at any rate. Honestly other then the talks about water boarding, there's no reason (as far as media releases) that would ::come to mind as to a reason for South Bay's comment. -Angelus Delapsus^Talk 21:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question... either i'm blind or I'm just missing it.

Is it true that the CIA is only 'authorized' to work outside of the country? Of course, ever since September 11th, this would be a debatable topic. But, is it on the books as that it is/isn't? --Angelus Delapsus^Talk 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The CIA's charter has always limited it to foreign intelligence work (that's not the exact wording, but something to that effect, Howard would know better than I), thus preventing it from conducting espionage or gathering intelligence inside the US. The CIA has, at various times, been either exempted from strict interpretation of this restriction in some very specific circumstances (such as working with informants from foreign embassies in Washington, DC) or has, on several occassions, violated this provision of their charter (such as by reading mail coming in and going out of the US) and been investigated by Congress and other arms of the government for such violations of its charter. These subjects are covered in the article, though I do not recall off the top of my head exactly where. (Morethan3words (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

What you wrote is essentially and literally true, Morethan3words. Of course, a lot depends on your definition of the word "work" in this particular context: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Plame_affair#.22Mission_To_Niger.22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plausible to deny (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FAN now?

Ok, I've made the change that I talked about above with regard to the organizational structure of the CIA. Due credit goes to Howard again, as well as everyone working with him over on Citizendium, as I took the liberty of stealing a lot of the format and wording of the re-write here from their CIA article over on Citizendium, which can be found here. They are not identical, I cut out some things I felt would be better addressed in the main article, but they have plenty in common.

So, what do we think? Should I go ahead with FA nomination? or is there still more work that needs to be done? (Morethan3words (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

P.S. Oh yeah, because I took a lot of the content from CZ, there are a few red links that probably have corresponding articles here on WP. If people could please help me with finding the right article for each one, I would really appreciate it. (Morethan3words (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

OK, hang on, I fixed the red links, but I realized there's some serious cleanup needed, so I'm in the middle of that right now. I'll write when I've finished the cleanup. Ugh, I hate conversing to myself...-Morethan3words (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Like Howard, I once did a lot of work on this article and other intelligence-related Wikipedia articles. Make another post when you've finished your "clean-up" revisions, and I'll make a global comment on the changes made, and perhaps contribute some clean-up of my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No barometer of intelligence (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Borameter, of course I remember your efforts along with Howard's in improving numerous IC related articles, including this one, and do not wish to slight those efforts in any way by not recognizing them. I do welcome your input on this effort, as you seem to be someone who understands the unique complexities of working on this particular article. (Morethan3words (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Okay...

In any case, I have finished my clean-up, and welcome some thoughts. At this juncture I would prefer to hear what people think about the "balance of content" between each section, i.e., is each section adequately described in this article? Are there any that go into too much detail? Undoubtedly there will be concerns about format, citations, pictures, etc. but for now I want to make sure there is due consensus on overall content before moving on to those other issues. I would stress that this is not an open invitation for people to demand more content for their particular pet interest. There is an awful lot of content out there in the supporting articles, and I dare say that almost all issues related to the CIA are pretty well covered somewhere. If someone thinks there should be more or less content on a specific section, I am going to have to insist that they describe exactly what they wish to add/remove and exactly why the current section is not adequate to understand the basics of the issue, and to do so here on the talk page before making any change to the article.

At this critical juncture before nomination, I am letting you all know that I plan to revert any significant edit to the article that is not first discussed here on the talk page. This is not to be a jerk but simply to make sure there is due clarity and consensus on the article before nomination. I appreciate your understanding.

With due consideration to the caveats described above, I welcome any and all suggestions, concerns, outraged rants, and threats to my manhood. (Morethan3words (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Seems like you did a nice job, Morethan3words, generally speaking. Could you provide a link to the specific Wikipedia page(s) where you will be making your Feature Article nomination? Near the top of this page, you made a reference to "peer reviewers still think we're too long," but I couldn't find the presumably public discussion that it referred to. I once had to change my original Wikipedia username, and had to go hunting on my own for the page where the deliberations about whether or not my old name violated Wikipedia policies was taking place. If there is a discussion somewhere else about whether the CIA article is up to FA standards, I'd like to read what has already been written on that subject before commenting further here. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Barometer, the archived peer review can be found here. As I'm sure you will note, these reviews are nearly a year old and the article has undergone some significant changes since then, particularly with regard to length. Specifically, we have moved two very long sections into their own articles, namely Organizational structure of the Central Intelligence Agency and Official reports by the US Government on the CIA. This has reduced the length of the article considerably. Though I think it is a good idea to look at these old reviews as there may be some comments that are still germaine. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

P.S. Sorry, as for nomination, I was thinking of just listing it on the normal FA candidate page but if you have a better or otherwise alternate suggestion I am perfectly open. (Morethan3words (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I went ahead and made the nomination myself. Seems like a straightforward process, and the article is easily up to a full FA review. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you forgot to transclude the nom to WP:FAC like the instructions tell you to do? I went ahead and did just that because without doing so, you would not have gotten any reviews. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I went through last night and cleaned up the excessive number of redundant wikilinks and links that were going to common words or articles that don't enhance your understanding of this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot to both MBK and Niteshift36 for your help, these are both things I didn't notice/know was necessary. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Budget

The $26.7b figure for intelligence budget in 1998 is for TOTAL intelligence, not just CIA. I removed that figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.27.29 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The misleading budget figure of$26.7 b is still listed in the box on the right-hand side of the page. This figure should be removed as well, since it reflects the total IC budget, not CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptiger10 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged collaboration with the Vatican

There are conspiracy theories out there that talk about a historic collaboration between the CIA and the Vatican. For instance, John Foster Dulles had a son called Avery Dulles who later became a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. Other theories point to the fact that both the CIA and the Vatican were opposed to the Soviet Union during the 1980s, with the apparent help of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta in organizations such as Gladio. There is also the fact that both the CIA and the Vatican were opposed to marxist regimes in Latin America during the same historical period. It would be interesting if this could be noted down at some point with relevant sources­. ADM (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, relevant sources would be a vaulable asset for such a factoid. (Morethan3words (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Way too flimsy for my taste. All you have are the fact that they had the same enemies and one of the directors children became a cardinal -- doesn't prove a thing.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that the Vatican has one of the most developed intelligence agencies in the world? Remember, they've been around for over a thousand years, have missions in many countries, and can play on potential agents' faith, particularly if they're Catholic. You don't suspect your local priest is a spy, but he's in the perfect position to be one. On top of that they train the Jesuits to almost intelligence operative-like. Not only that, is obviously friendly to the United States. Such agencies in most of the West work with the CIA, some more closely than others. Such as the British SIS or Israeli Mossad. Don't kid yourselves, the Vatican is pretty shrewd and well regarded in the intelligence community. For obvious reasons the CIA or SIS can't go around saying, "Oh yeah, we wired tapped so-and-so's phone with the Vatican's help." 68.157.21.233 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

CIA

The CIA is one of the most corrupt organizations the world has ever seen. Pretty soon they will have to torture themselves to get a pay raise. 204.133.215.130 (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that insight. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable tactics

Can the 1953 Iranian coup d'état be mentioned as a project targeted at self-intrest (predominantly regarding oil) and as a faulty tactic regarding the safeguarding of peace and global progress/prosperity See also: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.207.26 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

CIA activities in Iran are already discussed, at length, here, here and here. I suggest you take your inquiries to one of those articles. (Morethan3words (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Citations

I've tried to make more precise some of the parts of the article where citations are lacking and needed (the banner at the top of the article is not very helpful in this respect!). In regard to the request at the top of the talk page for reassessment of good article status, such reassessment will be needed if citation issues are not addressed. Geometry guy 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance here, Geometry guy, the banner at the top was a bit vague, and it is helpful to have a more precise examination of the article's weaknesses in this regard. I will try my best to find citations for the sentences that need it, although I have to say that most of this article was put together by an editor that is no longer active on the wiki. I am still in contact with him and can probably ask him for specific citations that I have trouble finding, but all this will take some time before I have tracked down all the needed citations. Do you have a time frame in mind with regard to getting this done without the need for reassessment? (Morethan3words (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I just noticed that Nehrams' attention has been drawn to this article as part of the GA sweeps process for checking GAs which were listed prior to August 2007. That would mean an individual reassessment rather than a community reassessment: the former is more informal as a one-to-one between reviewer and editor. In my view it provides a good context for improving the article, and hope that you would be given the time you need to track down references. Nehrams is an excellent and helpful reviewer in my opinion. Geometry guy 19:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome his thoughts, but I believe he withdrew his attention upon seeing this discussion... (Morethan3words (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

I pinged Nehrams yesterday. Geometry guy 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted myself as I thought that Geometry guy was already reviewing the article. Per the go-ahead, I am reviewing the article. Feel free to weigh in at the review page if you catch something I don't. I have no problems leaving an article on hold for several weeks if progress is made throughout the review in addressing any issues I find. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article needs many changes to meet the criteria and to remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed:

1. Normally, I would delist an article with so many citation tags, but if attempts are being made to address the tags, then it will continue to remain on hold. All of the tags need to be addressed, and there are other sections also lacking cites. As a rule of thumb, source any statement that a reader with no knowledge of the topic would likely question.
2. The lead should at most be four paragraphs. It's probably best to combine the last two. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
3. "In its present form, the CIA has an executive office and several agency-wide functions, and four major directorates:" The four directorates are listed but no explanation is covered on the last two. I think it would also be beneficial if this list was converted to prose. Also, it's not necessary to bold the font for the directorates (or the other occurrences in the article, save the lead).
4. "The overall U.S. intelligence budget has been considered classified until recently." How soon is recently? Last year? Last five?
5. "...and there have also been accidental disclosures:[14]..." The citation should be moved to the end of the details about the disclosure.
6. Throughout the article there are multiple short subsections with only a few sentences. Some of these can be combined (or the details can be expanded). In addition, there are multiple single sentences. To improve the flow of the article, either expand on these or incorporate them into other paragraphs.
7. "This office, among other functions, works with the entertainment industry." In addition to needing the citation, working with the entertainment industry to do what? Gather intelligence or assist in making films/TV shows? Or maybe both?
8. "There is an Office dedicated to Iraq, and regional analytical Offices covering:" Is an entire office dedicated to the one country just because of the current war or for another reason? If it's not the only office to be dedicated to a single country then it likely doesn't need to be mentioned (or the others do).
9. "See details of work in this area in CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia" Instead of "see", use the {{see also}} at the beginning of the section. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article.
10. The article jumps back and forth between using "US" and "U.S.". It would be a good idea to choose one and stick with it (don't worry about the sources that use it).
11. "As such, the National Clandestine Service (NCS; formerly the Directorate of Operations) is responsible for collecting foreign intelligence, mainly from clandestine HUMINT sources, and covert action." This is the first occurrence of "HUMINT" so it should be explained here what it stands for instead of a few sections later. It would be a good idea to sweep the article and fix any other occurrences of the first instance of acronyms/uncommon terms.
12. "The CIA has always shown a strong interest in how to use advances in technology to enhance its effectiveness This interest has historically had two primary goals:" The goals should be converted to prose as well.
13. "Many intelligence services cooperate." Among the U.S. or between countries?
14. "There may even be a deniable communications channel with ostensibly hostile nations." This is risking OR, so add a cite to be safe.
15. Unless there is some guideline for the layout of agency articles, wouldn't the organizational history benefit from appearing before all of the prior sections? I'd figure learning about the establishment of the agency would be most important before learning about all of the different offices and its operations. Feel free to correct/argue against this rationale.
16. All of the dead links need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.
17. Throughout the article there are inconsistencies in the formatting of dashes, extra/missing punctuation, and other grammar issues. It would be a good idea to copy this article into Word and run the spell/grammar checker.
18. Within the headings of the "Organizational history" section, there is inconsistency between how the years are listed (some use parenthesis, and the last one has the year come first). Make sure they are all uniform.
19. "CIA operations by region, country and date are discussed in detail in the following articles:" These were already mentioned in the first section of the article.
20. "Major sources for this section include the..." Instead of mentioning the sources used, actually use those source to provide citations for the statements that need them.
21. Some of the references only have the title and access date. The citations should be as detailed as possible by including author, title, date, publisher, access date, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET can be helpful in formatting references easier.

This article is obviously an important topic, and because of its large size, a lot of work is needed to maintain and improve it. Because of the amount of changes required, the article is going to differ significantly afterwards. I will likely need to re-review the article again after the above issues are addressed. While many of these are easy to address and will not require much time, some will definitely take a while to accomplish (mainly the sourcing). Due to the amount of the workload, I am going to present two options. I can leave the article on hold for a week at a time, where I will check the ongoing progress and will keep the article if all of the issues are addressed within a few weeks. Or, if you believe the above issues will take more than a few weeks or can't be addressed at this time (lack of sources to find cites, for example), I can fail the article now. The article can then be re-nominated at WP:GAN once all of the above issues are addressed, or I can re-review the article for you. Let me know what you would consider the best option. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nehrams2020, this is really helpful, a good review, and I have been needing someone to help me figure out what needs to be done on this for a while now. As for the options, I am not certain what is best, I mean, I plan on working on all of the above as soon as I can, but I am currently away right now and will not return until the weekend, so unless some charitable editor comes along, I don't think you will see any progress on this article until at least the weekend. However, I can promise to work on it as soon as I get back, and from that point on you should see some steady improvement. So, if you are willing to allow for a week of inactivity, then I would prefer you leave it on hold. On the other hand, a week of inactivity is certainly a while, and I completely understand if you would rather fail it now and let me re-nominate at a later date. Please let me know what you think is best. (Morethan3words (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the reply. I know that you have the best intentions for the article and that you will be continuing to improve it. But another thing to consider is that this article is still available for readers to see. With all of the citation tags and issues I mentioned above, it's hard to illustrate to readers what a GA is based on the state of this article. It's my recommendation that based on the time you're away, as well as the time it will take to improve the article that delisting it is the proper course of action. I'll always be around, so when you address all of the issues (or have questions on any of them), you can just let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to help you out. I have no problems re-reviewing the article (unless you want somebody else to) once it's re-nominated at GAN. It's always hard to see an article delisted, but in the long term (as well as for current readers), I think it's the best option. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and thanks for your efforts. You do seem to be pretty reasonable about this and please count on me coming back to you once I have addressed the above. Cheers, - Morethan3words (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

Per the above comments, it appears that the issues will not be able to be addressed in the coming weeks. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. I'll be happy to re-review the article or at least give it another look if you want to nominate it at GAN. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. This is an important topic, and I'd like to see it return to GA and hopefully FA at some point. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Notable CIA Agents Who Found Themselves In the Media's Limelight

Hey, I would like to propose an idea of adding a list of notable figures who work or worked for the CIA and became shark food for the media to chomp on. Ronewirl (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate for the main aritcle here, but if you wish to create a new page for the list, then feel free to be bold. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Bold, huh? Ironically, some of the notables are notable enough to be written here in Wikipedia? If there is fear of repercussion for naming them here in this article, then we have a serious problem with a federal agency who can't keep their "notables" out of the media in the first place (to Joe and Jane public ... perhaps purposely been thrown out there for shark food). I still get a laugh or two whenever I read some of the things they publish. It turns a dull day into a humorous one. Ronewirl (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think adding it to this article would be a good idea. This article is already pushing the limits in terms of length. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any fear of repercussions of the names appearing on this page, rather it is a question of what is appropriate for this page and what should be hosted elsewhere in wikipedia. As Niteshift noted, this article is already pretty massive and we have had numerous discussions about what should go here and what should be placed elsewhere. (Morethan3words (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Relationship with US Freemasons

The CIA has often been accused of being associated with the US Freemasons. The article should consider either debunking this conspiracy theory or researching it with sources. ADM (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Most of what I have read regarding that theory would fall under WP:FRINGE, but if you have some reliable stuff, it might be interesting to see. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Or why not write up connections between the CIA and the Unhindered Candlestick Makers.... 68.157.21.233 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Termination of a "kill or capture" covert program

While it's unlikely that specific details of a sensitive nature will be made available to the public, it should be noted that CIA Director Leon Panetta announced on July 10, 2009 that a covert program unknown to Congress for eight years had been terminated. Panetta has launched an internal investigation as to why Congress was not informed about the program. Xin Jing (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• On July 13 2009, Government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity due to lack of authorization to speak about the program, said the secret intelligence program canceled by CIA Director Leon Panetta in June was meant to find and kill or capture al-Qaida leaders at close range rather than target them with air strikes. Xin Jing (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• At some point a new Wiki page will have to be made for this subject, or have it merged with an existing Wiki addressing the investigation proper. If this article is the beginning of that new Wiki or becomes merged with that Wiki article I'd like to be a part of that, so let me know when you guys think we're ready to make that move. I am also interested in working on the summary of this article if such a move is made. This article can't grow indefinitely, but I'll keep working on it until we decide on a different direction. Anyone here know what the usual wait is for such a democratic consensus? Xin Jing (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the CIA?

I did not read in the article where it says where the CIA is organizationally within the U.S. government. Is it a part of the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Justice, is it an independent agency (like the FCC) or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I poked around the CIA website and found this Mission Statement quote:

"Mission: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers."

So I guess the analogy is similar to that of the FCC - here's another quote from their organizational chart page:

"The CIA is an independent agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (D/CIA) is nominated by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director manages the operations, personnel, and budget of the Central Intelligence Agency." - Bradfordschultze (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In summary, the CIA is an independant intelligence organization operating within the US that has Executive-branch access and Federal budget authorization. It's responsibilities, among other duties, are to provide the President with a daily intelligence briefing and to publish the National Intelligence Estimate. Oversight of the CIA covert activities falls under the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which is mandated under Title 15 of the US Code, Chapter 15, Subchapter III.. It's this precise point on timely reports that has the Dems up in arms about recent covert discoveries, generating momentum to expand Executive-branch notification beyond the traditional Gang of Eight. Xin Jing (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of others reading this, it should be pointed out that the Gang of Eight are part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Cynical (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Weapons?

I was wondering if we should add a new section to declare what type of wepaons (guns) the CIA use? Thank you (TheGreenwalker (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Interesting thought, but I'm not sure what kinds of publications would really directly address this. Also, I doubt that their weapon use would really be that much different than those used by the US Special Forces. Unless you are referring more to the gadgetry used, which would include more than just weapons (tiny cameras, etc.), which I think would be an interesting topic, you could even go into the use of makeup to elude tails, etc. Things that go into that craft of spying, though that would perhaps better be its own article (if it is not already...) (Morethan3words | talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but how about if we include a section of some firearms they use? I am very sure that the CIA use guns with silencers on them. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

It might be fun to have a section that talks not only about weapons, but about the various "gadgets" that have been developed and used by the CIA, there must be a book on that somewhere. (Morethan3words | talk) 16:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Security Failures"

I suggest that terming the 1993 Rt.123 shootings a security "failure" is more a matter of opinion than fact. Also, the phrase "attack on CIA headquarters" is incorrect. The shootings occured 200 ft outside the CIA perimeter and 400 ft from the main gate, on a public road.

As such it seems unreasonable to expect CIA security to prevent an attack such as this.

I propose this section be removed. Mikeroetto (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Security Failure" is not the right term for this particular event, but I'm not sure removing it entirely is necessary. The victims were CIA employees and there was little doubt that the intent was to target CIA employees, it is therefore fair to say that this was an attack on the CIA as an organization. (Morethan3words | talk) 16:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with info on HUMINT

It said within the article that the CIA had absorbed all of DIA's HUMINT capabilities. This is not true. The DIA still has overt HUMINT collection. I deleted the misleading section.

Notable CIA Agents

NOC or "Gun for Hire" ?

Non-Official Coverage Agent recruited by organic CIA Agent to do frontline legworks for the Agency. Adhoc Agent with the U.S. Secret Service was as such, as 1986 Presidential Security for visiting Philippine President Cory Aquino to Washington Dc.. Carpenter Arpa awarded Meritorious Award and Commendation while as a Pentagon Resident serving on active duty service in the United States Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.229.112 (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, heard of a NOC who gotten a Presidential Citation Award who also served as such in the Navy. Also as such and a war veteran who seem to have disappeared with no more knowledge of his whereabouts and uncanningly lost his family-brothers and sisters included along with his wife and children. You are one lucky man. But not as lucky as NOC-Alvin Siglos (missing reward money) that not his direct family knows of his whereabouts since the time of ASG Abu Sabaya in the Southern Philippines. Could he be with the WPG locally or abroad, or with the Devil. Lucky you and your famlies.

The passages above may make sense to the writers, but they are in need of serious editing from a native English speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.28 (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Reference

"Conspiracy? The CIA and the Nazis" produced by Towers Productions, Inc. for the History Channel, copyright 2004 A&E Television Networks might serve as a possible reference for those seeking to expand this article. Official site. Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squideshi (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Security failure?

The article lists the 1993 shooting near their entrance as a CIA security failure. I don't feel this is valid. The shootings happened without warning, on public property, not on CIA property. The security forces at the CIA headquarters had no authority out on that public road, nor was it part of their responsibility. If something happened out there, they were to call local law enforcement. So how are we calling something they didn't have repsonsibility for a failure? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Have gone way beyond "Above and Beyond" fellas. NOCs are better-off than that, taken extreme care. Taking responsibility of...perhaps not so in a way although tecnically right considering that the agency or company have the responibility of national security. It does amply implies the same responsibility when overseas. however, the circumstances in the shooting, there was an alternative respondent/s if called upon. Since the call was never made, the situation was aslike being overseas or abroad made a responsibility. A security failure only if the local law enforcement was called. Otherwise, personally. I think it was permissable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.47.53 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Half of that answer makes no sense. What in the world does this NOC Mission Impossible fantasy have to do with the question? And yes, local law enforcement was called and involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

IMF-CIA

Impossible Mission Force or Central Intelligence Agency Forces. This two may be one and the same, isn't it. Featured in movies as MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, THE AGENCY. THE CORPORATION OR COMPANY. It seek to control world events in the carrying out of safety measures for national security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.47.53 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He he. They don't want an audit of the Fed Reserve, their principle direct black financier.

391 loser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

Successes

"In its operational role, some successes for the CIA include the U-2 and SR-71 programs, and anti-Soviet operations in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s"

This is listed under the controversies section of the article. If I am not mistaken, these anti-Soviet operations are responsible for helping to train Osama Bin-Laden during Operation Cyclone, which would not be considered a "success" for the United States. 68.153.29.23 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• bin Laden may have been trained by the Pakistani's via CIA funded programs (not directly by them), but the goal of the programs was to make it difficult for the Soviets and hasten their exit from Afghanistan. That happened, so it would be a success. That bin Laden fell into the number of people trained wouldn't make it a failure. It's an unintended consequence. Trying to dismiss it all as a failure, isn't realistic. It would be sort of like saying the Saints didn't win the Super Bowl because they allowed the Colts to score. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be more like saying that The Saints beat the Colts, but then failing to mention that, as a result of this, some second string Saints cornerback went on to murder thousands using the football training he received. To consider something a "success" you have to take into account all consequences, unintended or not.WesUGAdawg (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• What were the objectives of the operations in Afghanistan? Were they achieved in most part? Goals achieved = success. Unintended consequences etc. should be dealt with in other sections. The other fault in your example would be that this assumes that bin Laden wouldn't have done any of those things had the CIA never been involved. He was already a radical. He went to Afghanistan because of his beliefs. That he accepted help from Pakistan (help funded by the CIA) to achieve his goals or that CIA money went to someone who was later undesireable, but was helping the CIA achieve their goal is secondary. The issue is covered more in the article about the CIA in Afghanistan. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me there should be some discussion on the MERITS of spying on other countries. The CIA sends highly trained spies overseas to 100's of foreign countries. These spies are paid to break the laws of these countries and steal secrets. They do so by disrupting the lives of the people that live and work in these countries. Is this really worth it? It seems that there is a very high price being paid here by the other countries and by the CIA spies themselves as well as taxpayers of both countries. Is the information obtained worth the cost? What happens to the people the CIA turns after they CIA abandons them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

note on watchers vs. viewers

Every once in a while I notice a site with a comparatively high level of watchers with a comparatively low frequency of readers. CIA is high on the list.... Gee, I wonder why... :)

• Maybe because we know it's going to be vandalized routinely. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe not.....--Nabo0o (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe because the watchers think many people will read it but much less people than expected are intrested. After all, the CIA probably doesn't want too many people reading this.66.183.58.186 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No mention of COINTELPRO, no mention of Gladio

Wow... This reads almost like the summary of the CIA as might be found on their own website. The CIA supports any group or person worldwide that opposes left-wing politics and has probably committed or funded more acts of terrorism than any other organization worldwide. This may be the most heavily biased article on all of Wikipedia.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Biased? You mean like saying that the CIA "probably committed or funded more acts of terrorism than any other organization worldwide"? Why would COINTELPRO be in this article? That was a FBI program, not a CIA one. As for Gladio, that's not exclusively US and the CIA involvement still isn't clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• neither radical islamist groups nor dictatorships as Burma are left-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.240.225 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The CIA scandal, similar to Cointelpro, is MKULTRA. There is an MKULTRA entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

One-sided?

This article appears to be very 'one-sided', meaning that it comes from an anti-CIA point of veiw, calling the persons responsible for the protection (and sometimes failure to protect) our loved ones. Wikipedia should "maintain an unbiased point of veiw", as stated by the site administrator. Waterboarding is a means of extracting useful information from MEN WHO WANT TO HARM AMERICANS. There was once a waterboarding inflicted on a terrorist who ended up talking of a plot to bring down a major bridge in New York City. Investigators acted on this information and found the tools to cut the cables of the bridge in a suspect's apartment, thus saving many people from harm. Waterboarding is HARMLESS. It is a tool used to frighten a victim in the extreme. If you ask me, reading about what liberals are doing in Washington, D.C. is frightening!Pumanike (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The objection to waterboarding is it violates humane treatment of prisoners. The USA has never before permitted torture of a prisoner to extract information. Also, it may be PHYSICALLY harmless, but it does psychological damage. That is why it is considered immoral and illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Torturing can cause the suspect to become increasingly hostile, disabling the possibility of more effective measures. 66.183.58.186 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture and is not physically harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.155.240.153 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is WP:NOTAFORUM Niteshift36 (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Honest Reactions of a CIA Operative

I see vast misinformation in this article. The DNI, for example, is a completely separate entity from the CIA and has no acronym, but that is just a minor point. I am a CIA Operative myself and I would personally prefer more truthful information here for the general public because this artcile could be a useful recruitment tool, and it badly discourages recruits when they find out that everything they ever thought they knew about the CIA was a fabrication. I would recommend government service to anybody, certainly, but we are at a time in history when the overzealous members of our government protect sensitive information by spreading falsehoods which could create more confusion and problems than they solve. Please check the official CIA website for more accurate information. I don't know who posted this stuff here but I'm asking my department to consider posting a full revision that is more accurate and cleared for public disclosure. We are finding recently that "leaky espionage" and selective truth-telling are really valuable for recruitment as well as other things. In the Biblical book of Sirach, there is a scripture passage in a section on "Conduct in Public Life" which esentially reads, "Telling lie after lie is no good." Truly, it seems like government misinformation has to ebb, really, since we have reached a point where the American public has little hold on reality. Naturally, there will always be secrets and secrecy over national security issues, which is simply prudent, but basic honesty with the public has been overwhelmingly positive so far, and I would personally like to see how far we can go with intentional disclosures to the public. I'll post some of my code names here in case somebody wants an ethical debate. I'm known as "h" in the United Kingdom, "Leviathan" in France, "667" in Russia, "Mr. Taco" in China, and the international community knows me as both "g" and "Zero." The material posted here in this article makes the CIA sound very nefarious and intimidating, but that is not the way I perceive it as a spy who has worked overseas. We maintain a family-oriented atomosphere and field agents are treated wonderful most of the time by management, since you can't get very far with what we do in any other way. The Company has a no-commitment pledge program that can let you try out some simple tasks to "grow your legs" and show us what you can do without getting into anything where you would feel in over your head. Like I said, I would recommend working for the CIA to anybody. Thanks for reading and have a nice day. -"Montgomery," "Priest." Message permitted and approved by 'Frank' 12 August 2010 from D Department. D Department rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.159.47 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the CIA is/was not the way they do things. I believe CIA operative are normal people and would do things like an average person in the average case. The problem is more about making too many operations secret. When an ordinary person has the choice to make what he does secret, I think things will work differently. I can only see two possible reasons a operation would be secret. 1, the suspected reason: the operation is corrupt and immoral so it is hidden. 2, the claimed reason, it is to protect the operatives by hiding their identities. If you look closely at #2, you'll see the problem. Obvious facts: the CIA's identities are hidden because enemy would rather attack the operatives than American civilians (if that’s not true they would leave the operatives alone while attacking civilians so there is no need of hiding), the enemy only has a limited amount of ability (if they had unlimited power we'd all be dead by now), it requires the enemy more ability to kill an well equipped and trained specialist CIA agent than an unarmed US civilian (the terrorists killed a lot of unarmed American and Middle Eastern civilians but few CIA agents died), and the current enemy would attack innocent US civilians when they can't identify the soldiers/agents in the operations (we all knew it happened). So less people will die if the operatives are not "protected." I guess when the operatives are spared and innocent US civilians die from terrorist attacks the propaganda artists can scream at the fact the enemy attacked innocent people so more people will support the operatives. Win-win situation of the operatives isn't it? If you think the CIA is very nice and caring, why would they even have any secrets? Qwertyuioplkjhgfdsa7 (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of you need to stay off Wikipedia. It's because of people like you why the quality and integrity of Wikipedia is always called into question. 98.174.219.212 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What is on the talk page can never degrade Wikipedia's "quality and integrity" (if they're beneficial, the article will be changed, if not and the article changed, it's the editor's fault, not the talk page)Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

CIA Organizational Chart

Should this be relevant on the article.Link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.2.108 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is obviously written in a very liberal, anti-CIA point of view, and lacking citations for most of the alleged wrongdoings. I myself am not a fan of the CIA, but if you're going to be this biased against an organization, make it less obvious. Controversy sections need to be shorted or made into separate articles and they need to have citations. I don't think I have seen any articles of organizations on Wikipedia that are as negative as this one. More than half the article is accusation, controversy, and conspiracy, much of it lacking citation, making this one of the most poorly written articles on Wikipedia. Once again, if you are going to hijack and sabotage an article, make it more subtle and less obvious than this. 98.174.220.8 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And looking at the other articles linked to this page, such as the CIA's influence on public opinion, are also poorly written and covered with layer after layer of philosophical ramblings and conspiracy theories, lacking citations for the vast majority of the articles. Proof that Wikipedia is not a valid source of information, and revisionists seem to have a vetted interest of rewriting history or attempt to manipulate opinion themselves. As a liberal, I say this article is a slap in the face to objectivity and balance. We strive for FACT, not TRUTH. Truth is what you make of things, fact is fact. 98.174.220.8 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"More than half the article is accusation, controversy, and conspiracy" It is not Wikipedia's something it writes about has so much "accusation, controversy, and conspiracy," but the reliable sources which describe the object. Don't blame Wikipedia about the fact that the majority of know reliable sources make statements about the CIA you do not recognize as praise. Some cultures give cunning and advanced power good connotations, and it is only your opinion that the facts stated in this article are bad. Also, Wikipedia does not "strive for FACT, not TRUTH" if "Truth is what you make of things, fact is fact." Many articles contain incorrect information, but if everyone thinks the information is the truth, Wikipedia doesn't care about whether or not it is a "fact" because Wikipedia vows to never use its own research(for example, if Jimmy Wales mixes material X and Y and everyone on Wikipedia sees it turn red, but all the other sources claim it turns blue, the articles will state it turns blue). You should also note that theories on propaganda have nothing to do with "conspiracies" as propaganda and conspiracies are two very different topics.Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sniffles. The poor CIA. A den of political zealotry and idiocy.

391 loser (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Imaging Sonars

Imaging Sonars via google

Thom689 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

drug trafficking section could be expanded

The section on drug trafficking doesn't mention that there is more research still pointing to CIA involvement in drugs (and should include references to that research, especially in light of mainstream media attempts to discredit the research of Gary Webb, one of the only journalists/academics whose research actually is referenced here). The Kerry Committee report, the book Cocaine Politics by Dale-Scott/Marshall or the book Out of Control by Leslie Cockburn, all came out long before Webb's 1996 research and point to far more evidence of CIA involvement with traffickers than what Webb uncovered. Webb's research was strictly related to Meneses and Blandon, the California Contra traffickers, anyhow: not the actual Contra supply chain operatives related to the CIA and North, such as Noriega, the CIA-affiliated Cuban Exiles, and Juan Matta-Ballesteros's SETCO company, John Hull, in other words all the parties involved in the Contras who were proven by the Kerry Committee -- unreferenced here -- to have been involved with drugs... the CIA was ultimately criticized by that report for "at best" condoning and judicially protecting drug traffickers' activities knowingly, or "at worst" carrying out the practice of "ticket punching" (quoting report) whereby known traffickers were given diplomatic cover and pay in exchange for coordinating contra supply logistics. My point is, those are the real meat of CIA drug trafficking allegations from the Contra period, that is, everything that appeared *before* Webb's research on the California connection. That (findings of the Kerry Report, the research findings of the "Cocaine Politics" and "Out of Control" books) should be included, with explanation that the Kerry Committee was institutionally prevented from even uncovering all available evidence (see rider to the report that claims -- paraphrasing -- "Even this report may have been compromised due to executive branch attempts to stifle it" -- see also Kerry's public statement that he ceased investigating one particular CIA-drug connection due to what he called a "special agreement" of his with another Senator). And we should also include, with regard to Webb's research, the response of the CIA (the Hitz investigation, which attempted to deny some of Webb's allegations, stated it "couldn't find evidence" of its own to support other allegations, and confirmed a few allegations while uncovering some interesting new information on its own). I realize there is a main page for this, which is linked, but as of now the drug trafficking section gives undue weight to certain things, doesn't mention other pivotally important facts, and is a mess of "citation needed" tags. Let's give it a much due revamp. (Heroin trafficking by the CIA during the Vietnam period is also barely mentioned here, with too much weight given to the obscure CIA defense of why they did it, and should be clarified/expanded)173.3.41.6 (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

MicroStrategy

The address of the headquarter of MicroStrategy is

   1861, International Drive
   McLean
   Virginia

It is 5 miles from the headquarter of the CIA in Langley.

• In Munich the distance from MicroStrategy to BND is 9 miles. (30 minutes by car, with subway faster)
• In Cologne the distance from MicroStrategy to BfV is 16 miles (22 minutes by car)

--No Mercy Now (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

David Petraeus future U.S. president?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: 58 year old retired General David Petraeus, until recently commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been elected head of Central Intelligence Agency. This suggests that the main priority of the United States even more effective fight against terrorism. Besides the 37 year military career, Petraeus has been thoroughly educated. Doctorate in international relations on the lessons for the U.S. Army in the Vietnam war, and was a professor. These are all the arguments for the thesis that General David Petraeus can be a good president of the United States. It is this possibility with the right moment wisely denied. Because it is the first task to perform well the current function, and depending on that, it opens the possibility to enter into high politics.93.137.48.184 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits

Made a couple of edits in the intro of the article. The cia isnt what people make it out to be in the movies and i just wanted to give the article a more "realistic" tone. so i rewrote a couple of things. let me know what you think Theamazingspiderman20 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding Ron Rewald to Category:CIA agents with criminal convictions?

Ron Rewald was a Hawaii investment banker convicted of running a Ponzi scheme in the 1980s. He claimed that he was working as an agent for the CIA, and there's evidence that it was involved in some way. Would it be reasonable to add the Ron Rewald article to Category:CIA agents with criminal convictions given that there's no definitive proof that he was a CIA agent? Pburka (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence of the intro- "through means of covert psychological, cyber, and social warfare"

The second sentence of the article reads: "It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers through means of covert psychological, cyber, and social warfare using non-military commissioned civilian Intelligence Agents to carry out these intelligence-gathering operations; many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations."

In my opinion, that whole sentence is poorly written, factually questionable, and misleading. As detailed elsewhere in the article, CIA uses many techniques to provide national security intelligence assessment that do not involve any sort of warfare; covert, psychological, cyber, social, or otherwise. The sentence implies that all of the CIA's intelligence gathering is performed by means of warfare, which is false.

I suggest replacing it with the following two sentences: "It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers. Intelligence gathering is performed by non-military commissioned civilian Intelligence Agents; many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.182.14 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I just came across this article, and noticed the very same thing. It's unnecessary and misleading and therefore should not be in the lead section. Your replacement looks fine and balanced to me, so I suggest that, if no other editor has given a reason why they object to the change in the next couple of days, we go ahead and make it. (just replacing the first word "responsible" with "with responsibility" for grammar) Begoon ^talk 01:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Updated as above, with this edit. Begoon ^talk 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Headquarters stuff

On CIA headquarters in history:

• https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2008-featured-story-archive/original-headquarters-building.html
• https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/headquarters-tour/virtual-tour-flash/index.html
• https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/k-5th-grade/a-birds-eye-view-of-cia-history-1/cia-headquarters.html

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The winning combination

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: CIA chief David Petraeus was a former military commander of the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. He has combat experience. Minister of Defence Leon Panetta is a former CIA chief. He has intelligence experience. Together they are a wining combination of defense and U.S. national security.93.137.38.80 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)