![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Should the Central Intelligence Agency page include a history which is controversal such as the Church committee, senate committees and covert operations in other countries, or should this be absent from the page, only talking about the positive aspects of the CIA?
I haven't had time to review the specific content issues, but as policy matter, and to answer the question, yes, controversial history is necessary for the article, provided its notable, and from reliable sources--and yes--this includes any notable allegations. To do otherwise is to whitewash the article, and this is certainly not permitted. I will also comment that it does not matter if any individual editors here agree that the CIA was involved in various illegal or unethical activities; its not for us to have an opinion on such matters on WP when editing its content. Its only for us to report all encyclopedic knowledge from notable and reliable sources. If the controversy or critical sections get too big, we can have the section point it a larger article that can get into great depth on the subject. Giovanni33 ( talk) 08:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now this page is a mess. I suggest that we
Extremely Tentative Agreement --
Prior to December 2004, the CIA was literally the central intelligence organization for the US government. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who took over some of the government and intelligence community(IC)-wide function that had previously been under the CIA. Among those functions were the preparation of estimates reflecting the consolidated opinion of the 16 IC agencies, and preparation of briefings for the President. When discussing the CIA, it is critical to understand when one is speaking of the older IC-wide responsibilities, or its present set of responsibilities.
To make the topic manageable, it is split into sub-articles:
The geographic divisions are:
- CIA Activities by Region: Americas (includes legal and questionable domestic activities)
- CIA Activities by Region: Africa
- CIA Activities by Region: Asia-Pacific
- CIA Activities by Region: Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
- CIA Activities by Region: Russia and Europe
The initial set of transnational sub-articles are:
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Terrorism
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Crime and Illicit Drug Trade
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Health and Economy
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Human Rights
The geographic sub-articles roughly follow the geographic divisions of the CIA Directorate of Intelligence, which publishes its general structure. It is probable but not definitive that the clandestine and covert side of the Agency uses roughly the same geographic areas, but a different transnational and support organization.
Really, I'm trying to understand what is a matter of agreement going forward. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that there was agreement not to keep adding even past posts to the covert action section on the main page. True, false, or something inbetween?
I thought the reason for a sandbox was to try to deal with some early parts of the article, such as oversight, reasons for actions we consider inappropriate today, and, in general, trying to get consensus on some of the things that logically are front matter in the main article.
It was my understanding there was some consensus on splitting off some articles, as long as substantive content was not lost. This is the hardest problem, as some material in the current article can be argued is not substantive or well sourced.
This is really an informal RfC to find out if I misunderstand. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 09:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I freely admit that I am still studying the nuances of Wikipedia sourcing. First, when I'm preparing a Wikipedia post/article, my preference in sources are what I consider "authoritative", which I think are different than primary sources. In the case of network engineering, I go to the IETF or other documents that are the formal specification for what is being discussed. In intelligence, I first try to find any declassified documents on the subject, any interviews or autobiographical statements by participants; things I consider having specific knowledge but perhaps with bias. Next, I'm apt to look for things that have gone through some sort of review process, such as documents from a reputable policy think tank, peer-reviewed journals, or reports that, even if from a government, are going to go through some sort of adversarial review, such as by another branch of government or the press. There are some lesser-known but very thoughtful sources, such as the publications of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
I'm struggling with expanding an article on TECHINT, in that I am not sure it needs to split into tactical and national articles. That article came onto my radar as a result of working on the Farewell Dossier, which is in much better shape -- one thing I'll do is follow every link suggested as internal, and, if there is useful information and there are no copyright problems, I'll bring the material and cite inline.
Press reports, and popular books like Weiner's, are some of my last-resort resources, as they often either sensationalize or oversimplify. I've published four technical books, and they might have sold better with more sensation, so I understand the economic realities. Still, let me offer the paradigm that is in the back of my mind when evaluating any source: Intelligence collection management#Ratings by the Collection Department. I apply "smell tests" to reports, such as the cui bono test, or whether it fits the dates of known historical events, or the author has a known bias or a reason he'd like the article to be believed. I'd also suggest looking at least at Heuer's, Johnson's, and perhaps Krizan's online books on intelligence analysis--I'll go put in the links here after I do more on my coffee deficiency. Bad cough last night and didn't get a good rest. Another reference is the analytic tradecraft notebook, http://www.i2inc.com/Products/Analysts_Notebook/. Some material from Davis -- https://www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/pdf/OPNo5.pdf
Here's a chapter from Heuer, but IIRC, it takes you to the table of contents: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/psych-intel/art5.html. Krizan is http://www.scip.org/2_getinteless.php. Johnston is https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/analytic-culture-in-the-u-s-intelligence-community/full_title_page.htm As a result of this, I'm putting a reading list on my userpage.
Does this give an idea why I'm very hesitant to put up fragmentary material, take single-sourced claims from POV sources, or, even more, unsourced POV claims? I think a difference between Ernx and myself, which he's commented on, is I am much less likely to post fragments.
If I do have fragments -- I would encourage all interested to join the Military History Task Force's Intelligence Task Force -- I call for help, perhaps on a talk page. When, as in the Chad or JACK
examples, there is recognition, on the talk page, that there are things that are not reconciled, they aren't ready for the main page. That's why I was annoyed by having talk page comments pasted into the main article, since subject matter experts, on the talk page, agreed that further data was needed and the situation was ambiguous. I'm not opposed to writing a main page section that discusses the ambiguity and arguments, but that's a different form of writing.
Now, I have to confess I really don't know why there is a need to bring the covert action of the main page back to where it was.
My impression was Trav was cooling off and also was taking a break.
I thought, Stone, that there was some consensus to leave the main page alone
until some consensus came together in the sandbox, probably on content that would precede the split of CIA activities on the main page, to reasonably and obviously linked subordinate pages. There is content being added to those pages, and I was glad to see, for example, someone making the distinction between OPC and CIA in the 1945-1952 timeframe; CIA couldn't have done something if an autonomous group had the covert action authority.
OK, where do we go next? Incidentally, as far as adversarial -- one of my other areas is medicine, but sometimes I'm in the hospital bed rather than monitoring it. At that point, I tell people I'm an impatient, not a patient. It does help that I speak Doctor at a native level of proficiency, and, when I challenge a diagnosis or treatment, I usually can cite relevant studies that support my argument. At the very least, when I objected to a drug being prescribed, I had biochemical and pharmacological arguments. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you guys have wrote a novel here. A couple of points:
It is a wonderful, tried and true way to silence dissent in wikipedia articles.
I don't have the energy to argue about this article.
For years I have defended encyclopedic and extremely well researched material from all variations of justifications for those who simply want to silence criticism.
Please, lets all show we truly want a NPOV article, and add some content to these controversial sections, with cited, sourced information, which just happens to support your own POV, [thats okay!].
travb 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Up until now it appears that we've got a consensus on some basic issues (in no particular order):
That seems to cover pretty much everything we've been discussing so far, yah?
The method i have suggested is this: Howard (since it appears he has the most comprehensive grasp of the subject) will help us get a new framework to operate on; we'll develop it in the sandbox and go from there. Right now, i believe we're focusing on the Oversight, Budgeting, and bureaucratic chain-of-command. The real meat of the sandbox starts here, and it would be nice to hear what everyone thinks about it.
For my part i haven't gotten through it, yet. It is amazing work, though, and i think it's clearly a solid addition to the article. I worry, in fact, that its attention to detail and thoroughness means that it's going to go right over my head. I'll be looking at it carefully tomorrow and Tuesday. I look forward to seeing comments from you all. Stone put to sky ( talk) 12:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you help me understand how the material concerns you, and what you think should be changed? I would ask only that we try to be clear about what was done by the CIA acting independently, under White House or equivalent orders, or by other agencies of the US government. As an example of the latter, the invasions of Grenada and Panama certainly were forms of regime change, but that did not especially involve covert action or even the CIA.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 13:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This should go in page Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and that page should be added to purple CIA wiki box. Agree or disagree? Erxnmedia ( talk) 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem with moving the section on the specific actions of CIA directors, as directors, to the page Director of Central Intelligence? Was anyone thinking of a completely new page, which I wan't? That page would look as it does now, but under the table of directors, which has links to the individual detailed biographies, I would put a heading that refers to their "style" (for want of a better term) under the table, and move the material in the main article to that heading.
There's a minor problem in that Goss and Hayden need to go into Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Goss would actually need to be in both DCI and DCIA.
I know I certainly don't mind, I think it's a good way of making sure everyone who is working on a page is, well, on the same page about certain facts that may come up in the editing process.
Also, related to the above, Weiner's book makes a lot of references to tolerance of rampant alcoholism in the early days of the CIA, Wisner and Dulles being provided as some of the more high level examples. I'm wondering what you guys think about this, should it be something that's included in our work here? If so, where?
I will say that Weiner does not really explicitly document this in any organized or exact kind of way, more simply in the descriptions of character of some of the people he talks about (e.g., "So-and-so was a clean-cut, well dressed, drunk who had greater talent for deceiving his superiors than the enemy," or some similar statement). ( Morethan3words ( talk) 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC))
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 09:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I put some comments inline, but there is a paragraph that seems to be editorializing without sources, and sourcing is available. My suggestion is we agree whether this is to be fixed
"The limitations of large scale covert action became apparent during the CIA-organized Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba in 1961" . Either the above needs sourcing, or clarification. As a brigade-sized amphibious landing, it was hardly covert. The location had been changed, and the force reduced, below what had been recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but that made Kennedy nervous. It is a matter of research to find out if the CIA managers understood and protested Kennedy's restrictions, or, which would be a limitation of covert planners dealing with a far larger operation than they necessarily understood. If they understood, they probably should have resigned in protest.
Without getting into a detailed analysis, some of the incredible mistakes made was that the ships were "administratively loaded", not "combat loaded", and critical equipment was not distributed among the ships. I recognize that I am using terms of art in amphibious doctrine, but if the CIA people didn't understand those nuances, they had no business planning a significant amphibious operation.
The issue of air support, especially when it was determined that at least two T-33's had survived the covert airstrike, is more straightforward -- Kennedy either needed to add US air, or order a retreat. To do otherwise was to have certain defeat and bloodshed.
One could argue that it was covert in the sense that US involvement was deniable, which was a JFK goal, but such things as overflights of US naval aircraft from the USS Essex make it hard to deny. The key limitation is that if you try a military -- hardly paramilitary -- operation, you either use the force deemed needed by military professionals, not politicians. It didn't work when Kennedy et al. changed the location and size of the Bay of Pigs, and it didn't work when Rumsfeld overrode military recommendations about force size needed in Iraq.
"The failed para-military invasion embarrassed the CIA and the United States world-wide. Recently de-classified documents show in written confirmation that President Kennedy had officially denied the CIA authorization to invade Cuba.[fact] Cuban leader Fidel Castro used the routed invasion to consolidate his power and strengthen Cuba's ties with the Soviet Union.[fact]. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 16:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Realizing that the "History" section was without subheads, I started putting them in, although I need to think about the appropriate ranges of dates. The ranges, in any case, will overlap, due to what some people might like to call "domestic blowback": domestic operations triggered by the Vietnam War spread into politics and thus abuses.
As to abuses, I would suggest many of them logically drop into a history, probably as their own headings and marked CONTROVERSIAL or something like that -- but right now, there's no particular flow, or consistent level of detail, among the controversy items. Some link to more detailed articles, either CIA specific or not.
Some puzzle me as to why they have risen to the main article, such as supporting warlords in Somalia. Somalia is certainly not the only place this happens, and there is a much more detailed explanation of who, what, when and why in the Africa article. Much of the drug issues in Southeast Asia involved what could easily be called "warlords", not that the term has any consistent meaning beyond "large gang leader" or "somebody we don't like". I guess warlords stop being such when they take over countries, and then usually become "dictators". I am not proposing that any detail be lost, but just to be editorially consistent about level of details.
Others of the controvesies, I believe, are different sides of the same issue and can be combined. For example, Watergate-related activities and the Warren Commission matters are both aspects of interference in public/governmental affairs. Several deal, in one way or another, with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, both the intelligence issues leading up to it and the operations after it started. There are other examples where I believe items can be combined without loss of information, but with better flow. In some cases, a controversy may have much more text than others in the main article, and it may not be more significant ones with a shorter writeup. Indignation doesn't substitute for reasonable editing.
So far, I've deleted nothing, added some explanatory text in the history, and moved some things around. Suggestions and comments are appreciated. There are other areas for editorial balance, such as how much covert operation approval belongs in the "organization" section, and how much in the "history" section. My first impression is that the older details should be moved to the appropriate history section, but with enough internal wikilinking to make it clear there is an approval process. Interestingly, no one has really brought out that Casey (e.g., Iran-Contra) probably ignored oversight more than any DCI after 1952, when covert operations and clandestine intelligence came clearly under DCI authority. Now, Casey was a dying man during the latter parts, but I find it ironic that the only DCI ever convicted of something was Helms, and that had some political quality -- he lied in an open Congressional hearing, but there's a good deal of opinion that he was trying to maintain security, and would have given the full details in closed session. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I see 5-10 edits discssed in the above 3-4 sections which are being referred to Sandbox.
I'm not sure how Sandbox works. My sense is that it is a bunch of people working on a massive edit, which will then go in one gulp into the page. Meanwhile as this massive edit is being pondered, the page will slowly move away from the edit with changes from other people not in the Sandbox group.
So then when the massive edit is put in, stuff put in the page between the Sandbox branch and the edit will need to be merged or get lost.
At which point the people not in the Sandbox will get mad at the Sandbox edit and start another revert war.
It doesn't seem like an efficient or convergent process to me.
How about (since I didn't get response from anybody except the 3 of us to my RFC above), just continuing to have a go at the real page?
As it is now I am afraid to touch the real page for fear of disturbing somebody's aesthetic or political or referential sensibilities, but I don't like leaving the page in a junky state. Erxnmedia ( talk) 05:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I share your trepidation. Thanks to my experiences on another page I, unfortunately, completely understand what you mean; but i really do believe the sandbox is the best way to go with this. I think that if we start off with the suggestion above -- HCB's first crack -- then it'll be an easier thing to move to other parts of the page. As i said before: i dont' think the first part of the article is all that bad (certainly not in comparison to some other WP articles!). My sense is that you're most disturbed by the lower part of the article, the list of covert actions; might i suggest that you start up a sandbox there, and elicit feedback in that way? As i've indicated above, there are competing cabals of editors here who seek to out-do one another for immaturity (though, oddly enough, some of them are led by clearly middle aged men and women - go figure).
These groups fall on two sides of this issue -- the "Let it be defined by its obscenities!" crowd, and then the "Amur'ca first! We're the best, DOOD!" crowd. For my part, i am an unwilling expatriate whose experiences have led him to a fierce distate for the latter group; consequently, i tend to get lumped into the first by default, but in truth i am really only interested in sound historical and political analysis.
What i mean by all of that is simply that if we start making big deletions on the page without giving a clear indication of the direction we'll be moving it then it's sure to spark a fierce and unpleasant edit war. I'd much rather approach this thing gradually and peacefully and would really, really like to avoid all that; at the same time, should a really fierce edit war erupt it's likely to do nothing to help the page and a lot to hurt it -- and as my first example, i hold up the page as it currently exists. That's the result of edit-wars. With HCB here, i think we've got a balanced person who's open to rational exposition, and i'm very happy to work with him to change this page in a gradual fashion. Yeah, it looks like hell now - but pecking and pawing at it without first establishing where we want it to wind up at is not likely to do any good. What say you? Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
One thing I could do is wikilink point-by-point the elements of covert ops section which are in branches now. This is tedious but demonstrates the point that the information was not lost (and was greatly expanded upon -- which point was apparently lost on Trav* who must not have read the pages at all prior to emptying them of content and redirecting back to main page).
Alternatively I am willing to let the LIBDBIO contingent claim victory by default (I admit to being in the middle-aged contingent), because, even though this is just cyberspace, I really have no desire to get into pissing contests via delete key with agenda-mad reading-averse Wikidenizens. Erxnmedia ( talk) 12:23, 9 January 2008 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Should the Central Intelligence Agency page include a history which is controversal such as the Church committee, senate committees and covert operations in other countries, or should this be absent from the page, only talking about the positive aspects of the CIA?
I haven't had time to review the specific content issues, but as policy matter, and to answer the question, yes, controversial history is necessary for the article, provided its notable, and from reliable sources--and yes--this includes any notable allegations. To do otherwise is to whitewash the article, and this is certainly not permitted. I will also comment that it does not matter if any individual editors here agree that the CIA was involved in various illegal or unethical activities; its not for us to have an opinion on such matters on WP when editing its content. Its only for us to report all encyclopedic knowledge from notable and reliable sources. If the controversy or critical sections get too big, we can have the section point it a larger article that can get into great depth on the subject. Giovanni33 ( talk) 08:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now this page is a mess. I suggest that we
Extremely Tentative Agreement --
Prior to December 2004, the CIA was literally the central intelligence organization for the US government. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who took over some of the government and intelligence community(IC)-wide function that had previously been under the CIA. Among those functions were the preparation of estimates reflecting the consolidated opinion of the 16 IC agencies, and preparation of briefings for the President. When discussing the CIA, it is critical to understand when one is speaking of the older IC-wide responsibilities, or its present set of responsibilities.
To make the topic manageable, it is split into sub-articles:
The geographic divisions are:
- CIA Activities by Region: Americas (includes legal and questionable domestic activities)
- CIA Activities by Region: Africa
- CIA Activities by Region: Asia-Pacific
- CIA Activities by Region: Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
- CIA Activities by Region: Russia and Europe
The initial set of transnational sub-articles are:
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Terrorism
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Crime and Illicit Drug Trade
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Health and Economy
- CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Human Rights
The geographic sub-articles roughly follow the geographic divisions of the CIA Directorate of Intelligence, which publishes its general structure. It is probable but not definitive that the clandestine and covert side of the Agency uses roughly the same geographic areas, but a different transnational and support organization.
Really, I'm trying to understand what is a matter of agreement going forward. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that there was agreement not to keep adding even past posts to the covert action section on the main page. True, false, or something inbetween?
I thought the reason for a sandbox was to try to deal with some early parts of the article, such as oversight, reasons for actions we consider inappropriate today, and, in general, trying to get consensus on some of the things that logically are front matter in the main article.
It was my understanding there was some consensus on splitting off some articles, as long as substantive content was not lost. This is the hardest problem, as some material in the current article can be argued is not substantive or well sourced.
This is really an informal RfC to find out if I misunderstand. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 09:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I freely admit that I am still studying the nuances of Wikipedia sourcing. First, when I'm preparing a Wikipedia post/article, my preference in sources are what I consider "authoritative", which I think are different than primary sources. In the case of network engineering, I go to the IETF or other documents that are the formal specification for what is being discussed. In intelligence, I first try to find any declassified documents on the subject, any interviews or autobiographical statements by participants; things I consider having specific knowledge but perhaps with bias. Next, I'm apt to look for things that have gone through some sort of review process, such as documents from a reputable policy think tank, peer-reviewed journals, or reports that, even if from a government, are going to go through some sort of adversarial review, such as by another branch of government or the press. There are some lesser-known but very thoughtful sources, such as the publications of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
I'm struggling with expanding an article on TECHINT, in that I am not sure it needs to split into tactical and national articles. That article came onto my radar as a result of working on the Farewell Dossier, which is in much better shape -- one thing I'll do is follow every link suggested as internal, and, if there is useful information and there are no copyright problems, I'll bring the material and cite inline.
Press reports, and popular books like Weiner's, are some of my last-resort resources, as they often either sensationalize or oversimplify. I've published four technical books, and they might have sold better with more sensation, so I understand the economic realities. Still, let me offer the paradigm that is in the back of my mind when evaluating any source: Intelligence collection management#Ratings by the Collection Department. I apply "smell tests" to reports, such as the cui bono test, or whether it fits the dates of known historical events, or the author has a known bias or a reason he'd like the article to be believed. I'd also suggest looking at least at Heuer's, Johnson's, and perhaps Krizan's online books on intelligence analysis--I'll go put in the links here after I do more on my coffee deficiency. Bad cough last night and didn't get a good rest. Another reference is the analytic tradecraft notebook, http://www.i2inc.com/Products/Analysts_Notebook/. Some material from Davis -- https://www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/pdf/OPNo5.pdf
Here's a chapter from Heuer, but IIRC, it takes you to the table of contents: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/psych-intel/art5.html. Krizan is http://www.scip.org/2_getinteless.php. Johnston is https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/analytic-culture-in-the-u-s-intelligence-community/full_title_page.htm As a result of this, I'm putting a reading list on my userpage.
Does this give an idea why I'm very hesitant to put up fragmentary material, take single-sourced claims from POV sources, or, even more, unsourced POV claims? I think a difference between Ernx and myself, which he's commented on, is I am much less likely to post fragments.
If I do have fragments -- I would encourage all interested to join the Military History Task Force's Intelligence Task Force -- I call for help, perhaps on a talk page. When, as in the Chad or JACK
examples, there is recognition, on the talk page, that there are things that are not reconciled, they aren't ready for the main page. That's why I was annoyed by having talk page comments pasted into the main article, since subject matter experts, on the talk page, agreed that further data was needed and the situation was ambiguous. I'm not opposed to writing a main page section that discusses the ambiguity and arguments, but that's a different form of writing.
Now, I have to confess I really don't know why there is a need to bring the covert action of the main page back to where it was.
My impression was Trav was cooling off and also was taking a break.
I thought, Stone, that there was some consensus to leave the main page alone
until some consensus came together in the sandbox, probably on content that would precede the split of CIA activities on the main page, to reasonably and obviously linked subordinate pages. There is content being added to those pages, and I was glad to see, for example, someone making the distinction between OPC and CIA in the 1945-1952 timeframe; CIA couldn't have done something if an autonomous group had the covert action authority.
OK, where do we go next? Incidentally, as far as adversarial -- one of my other areas is medicine, but sometimes I'm in the hospital bed rather than monitoring it. At that point, I tell people I'm an impatient, not a patient. It does help that I speak Doctor at a native level of proficiency, and, when I challenge a diagnosis or treatment, I usually can cite relevant studies that support my argument. At the very least, when I objected to a drug being prescribed, I had biochemical and pharmacological arguments. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you guys have wrote a novel here. A couple of points:
It is a wonderful, tried and true way to silence dissent in wikipedia articles.
I don't have the energy to argue about this article.
For years I have defended encyclopedic and extremely well researched material from all variations of justifications for those who simply want to silence criticism.
Please, lets all show we truly want a NPOV article, and add some content to these controversial sections, with cited, sourced information, which just happens to support your own POV, [thats okay!].
travb 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Up until now it appears that we've got a consensus on some basic issues (in no particular order):
That seems to cover pretty much everything we've been discussing so far, yah?
The method i have suggested is this: Howard (since it appears he has the most comprehensive grasp of the subject) will help us get a new framework to operate on; we'll develop it in the sandbox and go from there. Right now, i believe we're focusing on the Oversight, Budgeting, and bureaucratic chain-of-command. The real meat of the sandbox starts here, and it would be nice to hear what everyone thinks about it.
For my part i haven't gotten through it, yet. It is amazing work, though, and i think it's clearly a solid addition to the article. I worry, in fact, that its attention to detail and thoroughness means that it's going to go right over my head. I'll be looking at it carefully tomorrow and Tuesday. I look forward to seeing comments from you all. Stone put to sky ( talk) 12:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you help me understand how the material concerns you, and what you think should be changed? I would ask only that we try to be clear about what was done by the CIA acting independently, under White House or equivalent orders, or by other agencies of the US government. As an example of the latter, the invasions of Grenada and Panama certainly were forms of regime change, but that did not especially involve covert action or even the CIA.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 13:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This should go in page Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and that page should be added to purple CIA wiki box. Agree or disagree? Erxnmedia ( talk) 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem with moving the section on the specific actions of CIA directors, as directors, to the page Director of Central Intelligence? Was anyone thinking of a completely new page, which I wan't? That page would look as it does now, but under the table of directors, which has links to the individual detailed biographies, I would put a heading that refers to their "style" (for want of a better term) under the table, and move the material in the main article to that heading.
There's a minor problem in that Goss and Hayden need to go into Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Goss would actually need to be in both DCI and DCIA.
I know I certainly don't mind, I think it's a good way of making sure everyone who is working on a page is, well, on the same page about certain facts that may come up in the editing process.
Also, related to the above, Weiner's book makes a lot of references to tolerance of rampant alcoholism in the early days of the CIA, Wisner and Dulles being provided as some of the more high level examples. I'm wondering what you guys think about this, should it be something that's included in our work here? If so, where?
I will say that Weiner does not really explicitly document this in any organized or exact kind of way, more simply in the descriptions of character of some of the people he talks about (e.g., "So-and-so was a clean-cut, well dressed, drunk who had greater talent for deceiving his superiors than the enemy," or some similar statement). ( Morethan3words ( talk) 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC))
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 09:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I put some comments inline, but there is a paragraph that seems to be editorializing without sources, and sourcing is available. My suggestion is we agree whether this is to be fixed
"The limitations of large scale covert action became apparent during the CIA-organized Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba in 1961" . Either the above needs sourcing, or clarification. As a brigade-sized amphibious landing, it was hardly covert. The location had been changed, and the force reduced, below what had been recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but that made Kennedy nervous. It is a matter of research to find out if the CIA managers understood and protested Kennedy's restrictions, or, which would be a limitation of covert planners dealing with a far larger operation than they necessarily understood. If they understood, they probably should have resigned in protest.
Without getting into a detailed analysis, some of the incredible mistakes made was that the ships were "administratively loaded", not "combat loaded", and critical equipment was not distributed among the ships. I recognize that I am using terms of art in amphibious doctrine, but if the CIA people didn't understand those nuances, they had no business planning a significant amphibious operation.
The issue of air support, especially when it was determined that at least two T-33's had survived the covert airstrike, is more straightforward -- Kennedy either needed to add US air, or order a retreat. To do otherwise was to have certain defeat and bloodshed.
One could argue that it was covert in the sense that US involvement was deniable, which was a JFK goal, but such things as overflights of US naval aircraft from the USS Essex make it hard to deny. The key limitation is that if you try a military -- hardly paramilitary -- operation, you either use the force deemed needed by military professionals, not politicians. It didn't work when Kennedy et al. changed the location and size of the Bay of Pigs, and it didn't work when Rumsfeld overrode military recommendations about force size needed in Iraq.
"The failed para-military invasion embarrassed the CIA and the United States world-wide. Recently de-classified documents show in written confirmation that President Kennedy had officially denied the CIA authorization to invade Cuba.[fact] Cuban leader Fidel Castro used the routed invasion to consolidate his power and strengthen Cuba's ties with the Soviet Union.[fact]. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 16:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Realizing that the "History" section was without subheads, I started putting them in, although I need to think about the appropriate ranges of dates. The ranges, in any case, will overlap, due to what some people might like to call "domestic blowback": domestic operations triggered by the Vietnam War spread into politics and thus abuses.
As to abuses, I would suggest many of them logically drop into a history, probably as their own headings and marked CONTROVERSIAL or something like that -- but right now, there's no particular flow, or consistent level of detail, among the controversy items. Some link to more detailed articles, either CIA specific or not.
Some puzzle me as to why they have risen to the main article, such as supporting warlords in Somalia. Somalia is certainly not the only place this happens, and there is a much more detailed explanation of who, what, when and why in the Africa article. Much of the drug issues in Southeast Asia involved what could easily be called "warlords", not that the term has any consistent meaning beyond "large gang leader" or "somebody we don't like". I guess warlords stop being such when they take over countries, and then usually become "dictators". I am not proposing that any detail be lost, but just to be editorially consistent about level of details.
Others of the controvesies, I believe, are different sides of the same issue and can be combined. For example, Watergate-related activities and the Warren Commission matters are both aspects of interference in public/governmental affairs. Several deal, in one way or another, with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, both the intelligence issues leading up to it and the operations after it started. There are other examples where I believe items can be combined without loss of information, but with better flow. In some cases, a controversy may have much more text than others in the main article, and it may not be more significant ones with a shorter writeup. Indignation doesn't substitute for reasonable editing.
So far, I've deleted nothing, added some explanatory text in the history, and moved some things around. Suggestions and comments are appreciated. There are other areas for editorial balance, such as how much covert operation approval belongs in the "organization" section, and how much in the "history" section. My first impression is that the older details should be moved to the appropriate history section, but with enough internal wikilinking to make it clear there is an approval process. Interestingly, no one has really brought out that Casey (e.g., Iran-Contra) probably ignored oversight more than any DCI after 1952, when covert operations and clandestine intelligence came clearly under DCI authority. Now, Casey was a dying man during the latter parts, but I find it ironic that the only DCI ever convicted of something was Helms, and that had some political quality -- he lied in an open Congressional hearing, but there's a good deal of opinion that he was trying to maintain security, and would have given the full details in closed session. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I see 5-10 edits discssed in the above 3-4 sections which are being referred to Sandbox.
I'm not sure how Sandbox works. My sense is that it is a bunch of people working on a massive edit, which will then go in one gulp into the page. Meanwhile as this massive edit is being pondered, the page will slowly move away from the edit with changes from other people not in the Sandbox group.
So then when the massive edit is put in, stuff put in the page between the Sandbox branch and the edit will need to be merged or get lost.
At which point the people not in the Sandbox will get mad at the Sandbox edit and start another revert war.
It doesn't seem like an efficient or convergent process to me.
How about (since I didn't get response from anybody except the 3 of us to my RFC above), just continuing to have a go at the real page?
As it is now I am afraid to touch the real page for fear of disturbing somebody's aesthetic or political or referential sensibilities, but I don't like leaving the page in a junky state. Erxnmedia ( talk) 05:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I share your trepidation. Thanks to my experiences on another page I, unfortunately, completely understand what you mean; but i really do believe the sandbox is the best way to go with this. I think that if we start off with the suggestion above -- HCB's first crack -- then it'll be an easier thing to move to other parts of the page. As i said before: i dont' think the first part of the article is all that bad (certainly not in comparison to some other WP articles!). My sense is that you're most disturbed by the lower part of the article, the list of covert actions; might i suggest that you start up a sandbox there, and elicit feedback in that way? As i've indicated above, there are competing cabals of editors here who seek to out-do one another for immaturity (though, oddly enough, some of them are led by clearly middle aged men and women - go figure).
These groups fall on two sides of this issue -- the "Let it be defined by its obscenities!" crowd, and then the "Amur'ca first! We're the best, DOOD!" crowd. For my part, i am an unwilling expatriate whose experiences have led him to a fierce distate for the latter group; consequently, i tend to get lumped into the first by default, but in truth i am really only interested in sound historical and political analysis.
What i mean by all of that is simply that if we start making big deletions on the page without giving a clear indication of the direction we'll be moving it then it's sure to spark a fierce and unpleasant edit war. I'd much rather approach this thing gradually and peacefully and would really, really like to avoid all that; at the same time, should a really fierce edit war erupt it's likely to do nothing to help the page and a lot to hurt it -- and as my first example, i hold up the page as it currently exists. That's the result of edit-wars. With HCB here, i think we've got a balanced person who's open to rational exposition, and i'm very happy to work with him to change this page in a gradual fashion. Yeah, it looks like hell now - but pecking and pawing at it without first establishing where we want it to wind up at is not likely to do any good. What say you? Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
One thing I could do is wikilink point-by-point the elements of covert ops section which are in branches now. This is tedious but demonstrates the point that the information was not lost (and was greatly expanded upon -- which point was apparently lost on Trav* who must not have read the pages at all prior to emptying them of content and redirecting back to main page).
Alternatively I am willing to let the LIBDBIO contingent claim victory by default (I admit to being in the middle-aged contingent), because, even though this is just cyberspace, I really have no desire to get into pissing contests via delete key with agenda-mad reading-averse Wikidenizens. Erxnmedia ( talk) 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)