This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
The first paragraph says "citation needed" for the CIA reporting to ODNI, this information is available here:
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/faq
Click on the PDF icon to get it. Look under "Is the ODNI part of the CIA." I would add this to the article myself but the code to add citations is hopelessly complex. Massysett ( talk) 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It was claimed today that Gen Petraeus would step down due to an extramarital affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.105.81 ( talk) 21:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is citation 20 ( http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/) in this article? How is it useful, and how does it apply to the sentence it is attached to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.35.150 ( talk) 13:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Obvious spam, and now removed. Thank you for pointing it out, and I apologise that nobody removed it more quickly after you posted here. Begoon talk 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What about Echelon, Electronic Surveillance Project, shouldn't it be in the article as well? 46.9.42.58 ( talk) 11:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Does the CIA have an official flag? Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 09:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the new section with this title. The added info [1] concerns me. The entire section is based on a single source, a research paper written by a scholar of unknown notability. I can't even tell if it was actually published in the journal or not, but this 91 page document surely didn't all appear on page 539 as the citation would have us believe. I'd like to see some discussion on this before putting in a whole section based on one author that makes some claims not easily found in the source. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive criticism. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I am still trying to figure out the "do's and dont's," so to speak. I'm sorry if you were unable to locate the quotes in the page numbers I provided. I assure you they came from the document, but I may have made mistakes when I was coding. The concern you raise regarding my contribution emanating from a single source is fair. I will definitely have a more diverse array of sources for future posts. Cheers Timothysandole ( talk) 18:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Prior language used in this article indicated the CIA "descended" from the wartime OSS; such language overstates the case.
The OSS came into existence during a hot war and was primarily concerned with inserting agents for activities behind enemy lines as well as gathering intelligence about those enemies. Quoting the Wikipedia OSS article specifically on that office's founding,
The OSS did not morph into the CIA; it had evaporated by end of the year in which the Allies won World War II and hostilities came to a close, 1945.
The CIA was created anew subsequently in 1947 by formal, specific Congressional legislation, The National Security Act of 1947. That Act specifically charged the CIA with being the head of all US intelligence and created a much more powerful, diverse, complicated and independent agency than the OSS ever was, active in many countries with whom we are not formally at war and in many non-military ways. While I think this distinction is reflected in this article's introduction, that distinction was lost somewhat in the "History" section wherein the CIA was labeled as the OSS's descendant; I have changed that characterization to make it more consistent with the introductory language i.e. while the CIA did succeed the OSS temporally and has tended to attempt to bask in that entity's glory, the CIA was not a direct descendant of the OSS - it was (and is) a different (and eminently less successful) animal. BLZebubba ( talk) 15:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, What are the criteria for entering CIA?
115.114.44.11 ( talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Lalit ,New delhi, India 06/08/13
It currently reads "Also in 1952, United States Army Special Forces were created, with some missions overlapping those of the Department of Plans". What is that? Vandalism or a mistype perhaps? 184.46.54.187 ( talk) 14:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I feel this could be included in the history section: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran. Published in Foreign Policy (magazine) by Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid, Aug 26 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.11.152 ( talk) 08:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the recently-added budget info from the introduction because it erroneously compared the CIA's share in the actual intelligence budget of the 1990s to the CIA's share in the National Intelligence Program budget, which is only one large part of the intelligence budget. So CIA's share of these funds is not same as CIA's share of the intelligence budget.-- Sdverv ( talk) 21:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the article discusses restrictions on the CIA's activities. I think there should be a section on the legal scope of its activities upon creation, the restrictions put on it in the aftermath of Watergate, the loosening of restrictions post-9/11, etc. Duoduoduo ( talk) 13:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.141.6 ( talk) 12:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
je m,exprime en francais due que j,ai etait operer du cerveau est d,autre parties du corp humain je suis sur le nom de el kadi prenom karim resident pour le moment a tafersite bouhidous maroc est normalement je suis des etats-unis texas pouvais vous m,aidais merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.143.150.23 ( talk) 10:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I feel this could be included in the history section: Ex-official: Cia Helped Jail Mandela. -- 88.68.191.214 ( talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the article needs a separate topic focusing solely on the Assassination attempts(failed and successful) made by the CIA? My concerns are as follows:
Depending on the consensus, i'll start working on a sub section. Thank you
dhiv
talk
05:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |retrieved=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
I've created a new article about the Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
As per WP:LEAD:
Can somebody involved with the article please explain what the rationale is for not including this? KingHiggins ( talk) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
To me it seems stupid to have the number of employees Classified as I think the public has the right to know and I see no reason why it has to be classified. I can see why the annual budget is classified, as I don't think the people don't need to know that, but come on what would it hurt to reveal how many employees you have? Sk8terguy27 Talk 23:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Not only . When someone is working against U.S. CIA simply gets Viell (more than durchschnitlich) a pitch. Thus, the door which, gründsätzlich, should be worn automatically is suddenly not good enough closed, they unbeckante person they see all over aschend whether probably did not happen's, etc. Or, they come to an excessive happiness. So, how to Barack Obama suddenly become a President! 80.201.244.122 ( talk) 10:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Is the 'torture report' (see news articles ad nauseum) the Panetta Review or does it exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? I can't believe an article hasn't been created yet. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty flabbergasted that this article has a "B" quality rating, signifying that, whoever reviewed it, believes that it has flawed, but fairly comprehensive coverage of the subject. I visited this article hoping for that, but the article's coverage of what the CIA has actually done is just paper thin. Not to mention, do encyclopedias really focus co much on organization structure over what an organization has actually accomplished? Which isn't to say that I expect this article to cover any single incident in the depth that an article dedicated to that incident would as articles on an entire organization needs to be concise, and because that would violate wiki article size policies. I did see the almost unmentioned articles on regional CIA activities. The one I glanced at was in even worse shape.
In my view, this article is a barely salvageable mess. Going from top down, the first obvious change would be to move the sections on the bureaucratic organization of the agency into a sub-article. It looks like further sub-articles might be on CIA Personnel, and another on it's budget. The history of CIA activities is a little thorny. Some readers will probably want a chronological breakdown. Some may want it by regions, and some may want it by country. As there already are a few regional articles, I guess as a stopgap, it would be best to have the chronographical presentation in the main cia article, and to try to improve the regional articles.
I suppose in the near future I'll start creating sub-articles, such as the ones on the bureaucratic organization, budget, and personnel, and, when they've gained a little traction, I'll start pruning this article. But I plan to start improving the history of the CIA's actions immediately. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Right now, the first part of it is repeated in the history section, so the only part I would think might be relevant is the priorities list, but even that has probably changed by now. I think the whole section could be redundant. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 17:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Tee Tyler Toe and anybody else who has been active on this page; I've been watching this page for a bit, and the single largest problem at the moment strikes me as being the sheer size of the article. it has 20,000 words, for goodness sake. I think we need to find a way to transfer material to subsidiary articles (because there's not much bad material in there). For instance, "Organization of the CIA" could certainly be a good subsidiary article, and perhaps "Covert actions by the CIA" (or something like that with a better title). Vanamonde93 ( talk) 15:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've cleaned out a lot of stuff from "Organization," for starters. If anybody disagrees with specific removals, I'm happy to discuss it. Some stuff was unnecessary; other stuff just out of place. It can be readded to the appropriate place, the info itself is there in the history. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 16:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I have boldly created a WP:SPINOUT article at History of the Central Intelligence Agency. North America 1000 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Merger complete. Information from this article has been merged into History of the Central Intelligence Agency. North America 1000 04:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Splitting the article seemed to be a good thing to do, as per WP:SIZERULE, and there was a rough consensus above at the Size section to do something, so I performed a bold spinout. Since the content in the history section was restored, the article is now back at 185,495 bytes, and the content still exists at the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article. I recommend whatever consensus hopefully arises here about dealing with the overly long length of this article. I also strongly recommend, at least for the time being, changing the History section in this article back to a summary, because of the duplicity of content that presently exists. However, since this was reverted, and in the sincere interest of avoiding edit warring, I'll go along with whatever overall consensus hopefully emerges here. North America 1000 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think presidential summaries should be in the history article. This article should focus on now. ( Hohum @) 20:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I ask the editor who has just made some very obvious protest edits to revert them before someone seeks administrative action. It is not acceptable behaviour, and strains assumption of good faith to beyond its limit. The attitude behind comments like "Why discuss things on talk pages when you can just mindlessly cut stuff" is not collegiate. ( Hohum @) 16:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Some years ago the article intro included a mention of the fact that the CIA sometimes goes by the name of Other Government Agencies, The Agency, or The Company. I'm not sure when this was removed but I feel it should be re-added since it's useful info that isn't mentioned anywhere else within the article. Slac speak up! 09:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Why was the subject matter expert needed tag removed, and why was the history section put through a blender? Section headers seem to have little or no relevance to the text contained in said section, and the narrative is shot to kingdom come. In the "intelligence vs action" section that seems to first be about the korean war, which is the section that follows it, isn't about the korean war or about intelligence vs action. It talks about the staffing of the CIA at the time having risen to roughly 1,000 with the context (that the CIA had been gutted to the bone after ww2) stripped away entirely. I haven't gotten further, but I can't say that I'm optimistic. Oh, and Lawrence wasn't the head of the CIG or the CIA. He was the chief counsel. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 15:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To reduce page length, a
WP:SPINOUT was created that moved content from
Central Intelligence Agency to
History of the Central Intelligence Agency. This has now been reverted twice by one user. Per the editing guideline
WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kilobytes should "almost certainly should be divided". The article is presently at 172 97 kilobytes readable prose size. Users in threads above on the talk page have suggested that this split of the History section would serve to functionally reduce the page's size and better-organize it, while others have opposed this. Some have also suggested additional various means to reduce the page's length.
North America
1000
14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be disputes about regional pages, such as: CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
It seems like this should be discussed. Right now, for instance, that specific article redirects to this article. One suggestion is that the page could be a jump page linking to the various country specific articles, and, in cases where a country may not have a dedicated country specific article, maybe information could be added to the regional page. This page, and the country specific pages though do seem to link to the regional pages which now redirect to this page. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 12:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I've started discussions on all "CIA activities in (region)" talk pages. They are formally merger proposals for some of the individual country articles into the regional articles. But really it is a hybrid AfD / merger proposal for some of the individual country "CIA activities in (blank)" articles. The discussion should cover keeping, deleting, merging, or redirecting those individual country articles, with the target of the merger or redirection to the regional "CIA activities in (blank)" articles. In addition, some material from this article could be spun out to the regional or individual country articles. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In addition, I think it makes sense to go to a continent scheme for the regional articles. Americas stays the same, but the others should be Europe (including Russia), Africa, and Asia. Australia and New Zealand articles currently redirect to the main CIA article, but I would favor redirecting to the Asia article, and either keep "and the Pacific" or not. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I started with CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia, blanking and redirecting Algeria, Burma, Jordan (questionable), Morocco, Sri Lanka, and Tunisia. But keeping Turkey and Yemen. Talk can continue on that regional page. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Work is ongoing with the individual countries and regional CIA activities pages. Since the CIA does not publish any geographical operational divisions, I think using the continents makes the most sense. The only divergence I see worth it is to include all non-mainland Asian countries with Australia, naming it "Australia and the Pacific." And keeping Russia in the Europe category and in the article name. If anyone has any objections to changing to continent-based articles, speak up. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I finished and I think I cleaned up the loose ends, but please click around to check. One remaining change I would suggest is to elevate the Soviet Union to an article listed with the continents. The title in the template is actually Geographic activities, so that would still fit. And it makes more sense than putting the Soviet Union article within the Russia and Europe article. Thoughts? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, everybody. First off, I apologize for pushing through a host of edits all at once. That always feels like bad form to me. Anyway:
I've been trying primarily to clean up this article, but I've also been trying to shorten it. I am not trying to research the content of the article, nor am I really interested in the history of the CIA, or anything like that, so I'm definitely Not That Guy (tm). I'm basically trying to bring a flavour of consistency to it, and if errors crop up (which I do not expect) I herein apologize.
Two minor concerns, because I'm unable to find the wikipedia-centric article I need, and I'll just directly and briefly ask:
US or U.S.?
Communist or communist?
Thanks everyone. I'll be working hard on this article for a while. Questions/comments outside of what's already on this talk page are always welcome. Thanks! :) Dystopiansatire ( talk) 15:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The section on the Iranian coup leads with a link to Mohammad Mosaddegh, but thereafter refers to him as "Mossadeq", which I assume is just a different transliteration, though it's not listed on his WP page. In the interest of keeping things consistent, I think the Mossadeqs should be changed to Mosaddeghs. 64.235.97.146 ( talk) 15:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Some open critics about the Obama Administration about the U.S. Navy SEAL team 6 : the Brainwashed "Fruits and Vegetables" SEALs on Bojack Horseman Season 1 episode 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcarter44 ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Central Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
In the lead section, an editor
has recently sought to define "
extraordinary rendition" as (the extrajudicial abduction and transfer of a suspect to a foreign government)
, citing
WP:MOSINTRO. I'm thinking this might be somewhat of a controversial description, and suggested it be discussed here. Does "extraordinary rendition" need a definition (of any kind) in the lead? It's already linked in the lead and it's mentioned more than a dozen times in the article, including as a title of it's own sub-subsection where it is described and discussed. I'm thinking this is sufficient, but if there is consensus to add a definition for the term in the lead, then perhaps we can come up with something more neutral and less buzz-wordy? Discuss. -
theWOLFchild
14:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
References
In discussing the matter above, I have noticed another issue with the lead. At the end of the last paragraph, it reads; Several CIA activities have attracted criticism. They include nonconsensual human experiments, extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques (torture), targeted killings, assassinations and the funding and training of militants who would go on to kill civilians and non-combatants.
This adds a great deal of
WP:UNDUE negative weight to the lead. This is the sort of material we have a "controversy" section for. There is also a glaring lack of positive material in the lead to offset this information. As it was added with a single edit, I'll remove it see if we can have a discussion here to provide more balance.-
theWOLFchild
18:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Central Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@
XXzoonamiXX: - Per
First responder; First responders typically include police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians.
That list does not include "military personnel" or "civilians". You keep removing them from the article, despite the fact they were also there assisting at ground zero, and insisting "they are first responders as well". I have asked you to provide a source to support that claim, so perhaps you could take a break from edit warring for a minute and go find one? You can't just remove content "because you say so". -
theWOLFchild
08:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
...medical personnel are not sworn personnel and are not trained to risk their lives as firefighters and police officers can. They are only trained to care for patients and treat them in order for them to possibly live.". What is it exactly that makes you think you know so much about paramedics? Why are you do eager to exalt police & fire, but treat paramedics as lowly ambulance drivers, no better then the average guy on the street with a first aid certificate? Did you know that many fire and paramedic services are blended? Meaning paramedics are rated as firefighters and "sworn in" (whatever that means... swearing an oath to the Constitution?) Did you know that paramedics go to college and university for degrees, whereas police and fire usually only need a high school diploma to get hired? And paramedics certainly do risk their lives. They get called to the same shootings, the same domestic disputes, the same bar brawls, the same riots, the same car accidents, the same fires, the same structure collapses, etc., etc. as police and fire, but they don't have the benefit of firearms, pepper spray, tasers, batons, handcuffs and the power of arrest (or the perceived authority in general), or the same heavy protective bunker gear and SCBA gear and crew of 5... or 50 if needed. Nope, it's just the two of them, dealing with the violent psychotics, cracked-out addicts, the drunks, the drug seekers looking to rip them off, the people with highly infectious diseases, etc., etc., etc. And they more than just "
...care for patients and treat them in order for them to possibly live.", they attend calls for crisis intervention, they do community education programs, they have joint-service programs, tactical paramedics assigned to SWAT teams, Marine Units, Public Order Units (riots), HUSAR Teams (search and rescue), CBRN Units, and more. The point is, you clearly know very little about the field of paramedicine, and I suggest you educate yourself more instead of continuing to make such disrespectful comments about the subject. Basically, paramedics are " first responders", just as is clearly stated in the link you added, and are a far cry from "civilians". Which only leaves the matter of the military. Why would you delete them? They aren't first responders, they aren't civilians, and they certainly were there at ground zero. So, again, disrespecting another honored organization... and for what? Stop this silliness, go do some reading, and let's move on to something else. - theWOLFchild 10:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of your arguments makes no sense whatsoever" - Why does that not surprise me? You clearly didn't read, actually read, a single thing I wrote, so further interaction with you is a waste of time. You are not interested in a discussion, only arguing your bizarre and uninformed point of view. You clearly have a lot to learn to about emergency services in general, but have no interest in actually learning, just going by what you see on television. Good luck with that, I'm done. "Report" whatever you like. - theWOLFchild 19:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I remember reading this article about 6 years ago, and it had huge, huge sections on the CIA. Now these huge sections are completely gone from this article!
Where did they go? Moscowamerican ( talk) 00:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
The first paragraph says "citation needed" for the CIA reporting to ODNI, this information is available here:
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/faq
Click on the PDF icon to get it. Look under "Is the ODNI part of the CIA." I would add this to the article myself but the code to add citations is hopelessly complex. Massysett ( talk) 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It was claimed today that Gen Petraeus would step down due to an extramarital affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.105.81 ( talk) 21:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is citation 20 ( http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/) in this article? How is it useful, and how does it apply to the sentence it is attached to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.35.150 ( talk) 13:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Obvious spam, and now removed. Thank you for pointing it out, and I apologise that nobody removed it more quickly after you posted here. Begoon talk 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What about Echelon, Electronic Surveillance Project, shouldn't it be in the article as well? 46.9.42.58 ( talk) 11:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Does the CIA have an official flag? Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 09:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the new section with this title. The added info [1] concerns me. The entire section is based on a single source, a research paper written by a scholar of unknown notability. I can't even tell if it was actually published in the journal or not, but this 91 page document surely didn't all appear on page 539 as the citation would have us believe. I'd like to see some discussion on this before putting in a whole section based on one author that makes some claims not easily found in the source. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive criticism. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I am still trying to figure out the "do's and dont's," so to speak. I'm sorry if you were unable to locate the quotes in the page numbers I provided. I assure you they came from the document, but I may have made mistakes when I was coding. The concern you raise regarding my contribution emanating from a single source is fair. I will definitely have a more diverse array of sources for future posts. Cheers Timothysandole ( talk) 18:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Prior language used in this article indicated the CIA "descended" from the wartime OSS; such language overstates the case.
The OSS came into existence during a hot war and was primarily concerned with inserting agents for activities behind enemy lines as well as gathering intelligence about those enemies. Quoting the Wikipedia OSS article specifically on that office's founding,
The OSS did not morph into the CIA; it had evaporated by end of the year in which the Allies won World War II and hostilities came to a close, 1945.
The CIA was created anew subsequently in 1947 by formal, specific Congressional legislation, The National Security Act of 1947. That Act specifically charged the CIA with being the head of all US intelligence and created a much more powerful, diverse, complicated and independent agency than the OSS ever was, active in many countries with whom we are not formally at war and in many non-military ways. While I think this distinction is reflected in this article's introduction, that distinction was lost somewhat in the "History" section wherein the CIA was labeled as the OSS's descendant; I have changed that characterization to make it more consistent with the introductory language i.e. while the CIA did succeed the OSS temporally and has tended to attempt to bask in that entity's glory, the CIA was not a direct descendant of the OSS - it was (and is) a different (and eminently less successful) animal. BLZebubba ( talk) 15:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, What are the criteria for entering CIA?
115.114.44.11 ( talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Lalit ,New delhi, India 06/08/13
It currently reads "Also in 1952, United States Army Special Forces were created, with some missions overlapping those of the Department of Plans". What is that? Vandalism or a mistype perhaps? 184.46.54.187 ( talk) 14:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I feel this could be included in the history section: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran. Published in Foreign Policy (magazine) by Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid, Aug 26 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.11.152 ( talk) 08:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the recently-added budget info from the introduction because it erroneously compared the CIA's share in the actual intelligence budget of the 1990s to the CIA's share in the National Intelligence Program budget, which is only one large part of the intelligence budget. So CIA's share of these funds is not same as CIA's share of the intelligence budget.-- Sdverv ( talk) 21:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the article discusses restrictions on the CIA's activities. I think there should be a section on the legal scope of its activities upon creation, the restrictions put on it in the aftermath of Watergate, the loosening of restrictions post-9/11, etc. Duoduoduo ( talk) 13:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.141.6 ( talk) 12:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
je m,exprime en francais due que j,ai etait operer du cerveau est d,autre parties du corp humain je suis sur le nom de el kadi prenom karim resident pour le moment a tafersite bouhidous maroc est normalement je suis des etats-unis texas pouvais vous m,aidais merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.143.150.23 ( talk) 10:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I feel this could be included in the history section: Ex-official: Cia Helped Jail Mandela. -- 88.68.191.214 ( talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the article needs a separate topic focusing solely on the Assassination attempts(failed and successful) made by the CIA? My concerns are as follows:
Depending on the consensus, i'll start working on a sub section. Thank you
dhiv
talk
05:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |retrieved=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
I've created a new article about the Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
As per WP:LEAD:
Can somebody involved with the article please explain what the rationale is for not including this? KingHiggins ( talk) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
To me it seems stupid to have the number of employees Classified as I think the public has the right to know and I see no reason why it has to be classified. I can see why the annual budget is classified, as I don't think the people don't need to know that, but come on what would it hurt to reveal how many employees you have? Sk8terguy27 Talk 23:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Not only . When someone is working against U.S. CIA simply gets Viell (more than durchschnitlich) a pitch. Thus, the door which, gründsätzlich, should be worn automatically is suddenly not good enough closed, they unbeckante person they see all over aschend whether probably did not happen's, etc. Or, they come to an excessive happiness. So, how to Barack Obama suddenly become a President! 80.201.244.122 ( talk) 10:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Is the 'torture report' (see news articles ad nauseum) the Panetta Review or does it exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? I can't believe an article hasn't been created yet. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty flabbergasted that this article has a "B" quality rating, signifying that, whoever reviewed it, believes that it has flawed, but fairly comprehensive coverage of the subject. I visited this article hoping for that, but the article's coverage of what the CIA has actually done is just paper thin. Not to mention, do encyclopedias really focus co much on organization structure over what an organization has actually accomplished? Which isn't to say that I expect this article to cover any single incident in the depth that an article dedicated to that incident would as articles on an entire organization needs to be concise, and because that would violate wiki article size policies. I did see the almost unmentioned articles on regional CIA activities. The one I glanced at was in even worse shape.
In my view, this article is a barely salvageable mess. Going from top down, the first obvious change would be to move the sections on the bureaucratic organization of the agency into a sub-article. It looks like further sub-articles might be on CIA Personnel, and another on it's budget. The history of CIA activities is a little thorny. Some readers will probably want a chronological breakdown. Some may want it by regions, and some may want it by country. As there already are a few regional articles, I guess as a stopgap, it would be best to have the chronographical presentation in the main cia article, and to try to improve the regional articles.
I suppose in the near future I'll start creating sub-articles, such as the ones on the bureaucratic organization, budget, and personnel, and, when they've gained a little traction, I'll start pruning this article. But I plan to start improving the history of the CIA's actions immediately. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Right now, the first part of it is repeated in the history section, so the only part I would think might be relevant is the priorities list, but even that has probably changed by now. I think the whole section could be redundant. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 17:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Tee Tyler Toe and anybody else who has been active on this page; I've been watching this page for a bit, and the single largest problem at the moment strikes me as being the sheer size of the article. it has 20,000 words, for goodness sake. I think we need to find a way to transfer material to subsidiary articles (because there's not much bad material in there). For instance, "Organization of the CIA" could certainly be a good subsidiary article, and perhaps "Covert actions by the CIA" (or something like that with a better title). Vanamonde93 ( talk) 15:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've cleaned out a lot of stuff from "Organization," for starters. If anybody disagrees with specific removals, I'm happy to discuss it. Some stuff was unnecessary; other stuff just out of place. It can be readded to the appropriate place, the info itself is there in the history. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 16:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I have boldly created a WP:SPINOUT article at History of the Central Intelligence Agency. North America 1000 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Merger complete. Information from this article has been merged into History of the Central Intelligence Agency. North America 1000 04:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Splitting the article seemed to be a good thing to do, as per WP:SIZERULE, and there was a rough consensus above at the Size section to do something, so I performed a bold spinout. Since the content in the history section was restored, the article is now back at 185,495 bytes, and the content still exists at the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article. I recommend whatever consensus hopefully arises here about dealing with the overly long length of this article. I also strongly recommend, at least for the time being, changing the History section in this article back to a summary, because of the duplicity of content that presently exists. However, since this was reverted, and in the sincere interest of avoiding edit warring, I'll go along with whatever overall consensus hopefully emerges here. North America 1000 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think presidential summaries should be in the history article. This article should focus on now. ( Hohum @) 20:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I ask the editor who has just made some very obvious protest edits to revert them before someone seeks administrative action. It is not acceptable behaviour, and strains assumption of good faith to beyond its limit. The attitude behind comments like "Why discuss things on talk pages when you can just mindlessly cut stuff" is not collegiate. ( Hohum @) 16:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Some years ago the article intro included a mention of the fact that the CIA sometimes goes by the name of Other Government Agencies, The Agency, or The Company. I'm not sure when this was removed but I feel it should be re-added since it's useful info that isn't mentioned anywhere else within the article. Slac speak up! 09:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Why was the subject matter expert needed tag removed, and why was the history section put through a blender? Section headers seem to have little or no relevance to the text contained in said section, and the narrative is shot to kingdom come. In the "intelligence vs action" section that seems to first be about the korean war, which is the section that follows it, isn't about the korean war or about intelligence vs action. It talks about the staffing of the CIA at the time having risen to roughly 1,000 with the context (that the CIA had been gutted to the bone after ww2) stripped away entirely. I haven't gotten further, but I can't say that I'm optimistic. Oh, and Lawrence wasn't the head of the CIG or the CIA. He was the chief counsel. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 15:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To reduce page length, a
WP:SPINOUT was created that moved content from
Central Intelligence Agency to
History of the Central Intelligence Agency. This has now been reverted twice by one user. Per the editing guideline
WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kilobytes should "almost certainly should be divided". The article is presently at 172 97 kilobytes readable prose size. Users in threads above on the talk page have suggested that this split of the History section would serve to functionally reduce the page's size and better-organize it, while others have opposed this. Some have also suggested additional various means to reduce the page's length.
North America
1000
14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be disputes about regional pages, such as: CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
It seems like this should be discussed. Right now, for instance, that specific article redirects to this article. One suggestion is that the page could be a jump page linking to the various country specific articles, and, in cases where a country may not have a dedicated country specific article, maybe information could be added to the regional page. This page, and the country specific pages though do seem to link to the regional pages which now redirect to this page. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 12:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I've started discussions on all "CIA activities in (region)" talk pages. They are formally merger proposals for some of the individual country articles into the regional articles. But really it is a hybrid AfD / merger proposal for some of the individual country "CIA activities in (blank)" articles. The discussion should cover keeping, deleting, merging, or redirecting those individual country articles, with the target of the merger or redirection to the regional "CIA activities in (blank)" articles. In addition, some material from this article could be spun out to the regional or individual country articles. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In addition, I think it makes sense to go to a continent scheme for the regional articles. Americas stays the same, but the others should be Europe (including Russia), Africa, and Asia. Australia and New Zealand articles currently redirect to the main CIA article, but I would favor redirecting to the Asia article, and either keep "and the Pacific" or not. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I started with CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia, blanking and redirecting Algeria, Burma, Jordan (questionable), Morocco, Sri Lanka, and Tunisia. But keeping Turkey and Yemen. Talk can continue on that regional page. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Work is ongoing with the individual countries and regional CIA activities pages. Since the CIA does not publish any geographical operational divisions, I think using the continents makes the most sense. The only divergence I see worth it is to include all non-mainland Asian countries with Australia, naming it "Australia and the Pacific." And keeping Russia in the Europe category and in the article name. If anyone has any objections to changing to continent-based articles, speak up. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I finished and I think I cleaned up the loose ends, but please click around to check. One remaining change I would suggest is to elevate the Soviet Union to an article listed with the continents. The title in the template is actually Geographic activities, so that would still fit. And it makes more sense than putting the Soviet Union article within the Russia and Europe article. Thoughts? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, everybody. First off, I apologize for pushing through a host of edits all at once. That always feels like bad form to me. Anyway:
I've been trying primarily to clean up this article, but I've also been trying to shorten it. I am not trying to research the content of the article, nor am I really interested in the history of the CIA, or anything like that, so I'm definitely Not That Guy (tm). I'm basically trying to bring a flavour of consistency to it, and if errors crop up (which I do not expect) I herein apologize.
Two minor concerns, because I'm unable to find the wikipedia-centric article I need, and I'll just directly and briefly ask:
US or U.S.?
Communist or communist?
Thanks everyone. I'll be working hard on this article for a while. Questions/comments outside of what's already on this talk page are always welcome. Thanks! :) Dystopiansatire ( talk) 15:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The section on the Iranian coup leads with a link to Mohammad Mosaddegh, but thereafter refers to him as "Mossadeq", which I assume is just a different transliteration, though it's not listed on his WP page. In the interest of keeping things consistent, I think the Mossadeqs should be changed to Mosaddeghs. 64.235.97.146 ( talk) 15:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Some open critics about the Obama Administration about the U.S. Navy SEAL team 6 : the Brainwashed "Fruits and Vegetables" SEALs on Bojack Horseman Season 1 episode 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcarter44 ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Central Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
In the lead section, an editor
has recently sought to define "
extraordinary rendition" as (the extrajudicial abduction and transfer of a suspect to a foreign government)
, citing
WP:MOSINTRO. I'm thinking this might be somewhat of a controversial description, and suggested it be discussed here. Does "extraordinary rendition" need a definition (of any kind) in the lead? It's already linked in the lead and it's mentioned more than a dozen times in the article, including as a title of it's own sub-subsection where it is described and discussed. I'm thinking this is sufficient, but if there is consensus to add a definition for the term in the lead, then perhaps we can come up with something more neutral and less buzz-wordy? Discuss. -
theWOLFchild
14:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
References
In discussing the matter above, I have noticed another issue with the lead. At the end of the last paragraph, it reads; Several CIA activities have attracted criticism. They include nonconsensual human experiments, extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques (torture), targeted killings, assassinations and the funding and training of militants who would go on to kill civilians and non-combatants.
This adds a great deal of
WP:UNDUE negative weight to the lead. This is the sort of material we have a "controversy" section for. There is also a glaring lack of positive material in the lead to offset this information. As it was added with a single edit, I'll remove it see if we can have a discussion here to provide more balance.-
theWOLFchild
18:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Central Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@
XXzoonamiXX: - Per
First responder; First responders typically include police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians.
That list does not include "military personnel" or "civilians". You keep removing them from the article, despite the fact they were also there assisting at ground zero, and insisting "they are first responders as well". I have asked you to provide a source to support that claim, so perhaps you could take a break from edit warring for a minute and go find one? You can't just remove content "because you say so". -
theWOLFchild
08:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
...medical personnel are not sworn personnel and are not trained to risk their lives as firefighters and police officers can. They are only trained to care for patients and treat them in order for them to possibly live.". What is it exactly that makes you think you know so much about paramedics? Why are you do eager to exalt police & fire, but treat paramedics as lowly ambulance drivers, no better then the average guy on the street with a first aid certificate? Did you know that many fire and paramedic services are blended? Meaning paramedics are rated as firefighters and "sworn in" (whatever that means... swearing an oath to the Constitution?) Did you know that paramedics go to college and university for degrees, whereas police and fire usually only need a high school diploma to get hired? And paramedics certainly do risk their lives. They get called to the same shootings, the same domestic disputes, the same bar brawls, the same riots, the same car accidents, the same fires, the same structure collapses, etc., etc. as police and fire, but they don't have the benefit of firearms, pepper spray, tasers, batons, handcuffs and the power of arrest (or the perceived authority in general), or the same heavy protective bunker gear and SCBA gear and crew of 5... or 50 if needed. Nope, it's just the two of them, dealing with the violent psychotics, cracked-out addicts, the drunks, the drug seekers looking to rip them off, the people with highly infectious diseases, etc., etc., etc. And they more than just "
...care for patients and treat them in order for them to possibly live.", they attend calls for crisis intervention, they do community education programs, they have joint-service programs, tactical paramedics assigned to SWAT teams, Marine Units, Public Order Units (riots), HUSAR Teams (search and rescue), CBRN Units, and more. The point is, you clearly know very little about the field of paramedicine, and I suggest you educate yourself more instead of continuing to make such disrespectful comments about the subject. Basically, paramedics are " first responders", just as is clearly stated in the link you added, and are a far cry from "civilians". Which only leaves the matter of the military. Why would you delete them? They aren't first responders, they aren't civilians, and they certainly were there at ground zero. So, again, disrespecting another honored organization... and for what? Stop this silliness, go do some reading, and let's move on to something else. - theWOLFchild 10:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of your arguments makes no sense whatsoever" - Why does that not surprise me? You clearly didn't read, actually read, a single thing I wrote, so further interaction with you is a waste of time. You are not interested in a discussion, only arguing your bizarre and uninformed point of view. You clearly have a lot to learn to about emergency services in general, but have no interest in actually learning, just going by what you see on television. Good luck with that, I'm done. "Report" whatever you like. - theWOLFchild 19:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I remember reading this article about 6 years ago, and it had huge, huge sections on the CIA. Now these huge sections are completely gone from this article!
Where did they go? Moscowamerican ( talk) 00:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)