![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I confess that I miss User:Hcberkowitz now that he has moved on to Citizendium, where his contributions are as eclectic as they are prolific: [1] Another editor, User:Morethan3words apparently broached the subject of nominating this article for Featured Article status, and Howard replied non-commitally on his talk page: [2]. This article (and the entire set of sub-articles it wikilinks to is so vastly better than it was last Decemeber before Howard took it upon himself to overhaul them that I think it would be a nice tribute to his Wikipedia scholarship if it became an FA. That said, I would not take it upon myself to try to shepherd it through the FA process; I just don't personally want to get involved in the deliberative process of the Wikipedia community. And in his reply to User:Morethan3words, Howard points out a valid downside to the FA review process, i.e., we might have to re-fight all sorts of previously resolved conflicts about content when a new group of editors descend on the article. Still, I think it's worth doing if some activisit editor wants to take it on. I don't even maintain a watchlist, so I couldn't keep up with vandals, trolls and other assorted mischief-makers. Any takers to the idea? Plausible to deny ( talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC))
Peer reviewers still think we're too big. I think present size is open for defense, but one tangible suggestion was "Could the whole 'Internal/presidential studies, external investigations and document releases' section be a sub-article?" What do we think? Any other ways to make it smaller? Should we at all? ( Morethan3words ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
While I've taken a break from active editing, I still periodically look at my watchlist. As many of you know, I and others have tried to keep the size of the main CIA article manageable, without actually losing any date because all relevant content was moved to a hierarchy of subarticles. (comment;Do you mean "data", not date?````) I notice that yet again, Frank Freeman has started expanding al-Qaeda related content on the main page, after repeated entreaties to put that material in CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities and region/country-specific articles. None of his content has ever been deleted, just moved to an appropriate subpage. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Today, I notice that his edits completely removed the link to CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities. I did not stop editing because I believed there was only one "party line". I did not stop editing because I thought a hierarchy of articles, on a complex subject, was unworkable.
In large part, I stopped editing because I was very tired of trying to get consensus on a useful structure, and, when consensus seemed to exist, having any of a number of people move content to the appropriate subarticle.
I am grateful to the people that expressed appreciation of what I was trying to do. While I don't know if "revert war" is quite the term for what Mr. Freeman seems to be doing, it is an example of the constant "push one's own issue" approach that I got very tired of maintaining.
If anyone thinks my past ideas have been useful, I'd encourage you to try to resolve this constant creeping of al-Qaida in Brooklyn material onto the main article. If I'm the only person that cares about having a manageable lead article, then, clearly, it is inappropriate for me to impose my views on a community. I'll be curious to see if there really is any community interest here.
Thank you.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Silly me. And I thought there was an entire article, CIA transnational human rights actions, that was intended to discuss concerns in detail, give historical background, and compare and contrast trends. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not study the artice in depth with a view to making it more succinct, as perhaps some others did. However, to give just two example, the article has a screenfull (on my monitor, normal font) on the 1949 Dulles-Jackson report, and over a screenfull on the 1956 Bruce-Lovett report. There reports are important, but certainly a paragraph or two on each with a link to an article on each subject would appear to suffice. In the meantime, are you saying that a brief discussion of war crimes culpability and how the CIA might have incriminated senior administration officials therefor is not warranted in the main article? BTW, the article to which my contribution was supposedly transferred, CIA transnational human rights actions, makes no mention of war crimes as of this writing. I am beginning to think Plausible has a point when he surmises that there may be Agency plants here. As shown by independent studies (I can't cite the NY Times article date off the top of my head, government agencies and major corporations have officially unaffiliated contractors who monitor selected WP articles to avoid PR damage.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
First, I have absolutely no problem with the details of some of the past investigations and studies going to a sub-article linked to the main article, as long as the content is not lost. The key points that do belong in the main article, besides links, are to establish that the original legislation was inadequate, and some of the historic improprieties in the 1947-1952 (and slightly later) period came precisely because OPC was really out of control. In like manner, some of the protection of Japanese and German war criminals -- Ishii still makes me furious -- happened before the CIA existed.
As not too much of an aside, that latter point has broad relevance. When I wrote articles on U.S. involvement with Nazi and Japanese war criminals, I explicitly did not title them "CIA involvement", because a number of the deals were struck by Army Intelligence in 1945-1947, before the CIA even existed. Other things before the "Directorate of Plans" existed, into the early fifties, also need to be seen as a lack of oversight -- if Wisner didn't like what the DCI said, he could go to State or Defense until someone gave him permission.
Another aspect is that some of the questionable operations did not initiate in the CIA, but at White House level, under presidents of different parties. For example, it's pretty well established that the assassination attempts against Castro came from Robert and John Kennedy, mostly in that order. Whether someone in CIA should have refused or gone public is a quite different matter, to which I have no simple answer. There were some questionable operations in Africa and Asia that originated during the Eisenhower administration. MKULTRA, in contrast, was clearly CIA initiated and should never have happened.
Today (and for the last couple of years), we have the problem that some functions previously under CIA are now under the DNI, and other functions (including covert action) may be under DoD. CIA is not synonymous with U.S. intelligence, and, going forward, I don't know the best way to handle this. For example, the National Intelligence Council is in the ODNI, no longer reporting to a function (DCI) that no longer exists. To cite a "CIA NIE" after the ODNI was established is nonsensical.
I haven't gotten into the meat of the current war crimes issue, but there is a difference between "may have implicated" and, as in the case of Barbie, "a competent court determined". For that matter, the Valerie Plame Wilson matter again had a lot more specifics than "may have". It's questionable if speculation belongs in Wikipedia at all, but, if there are allegations, I see those as legitimate topics for an article about the progress in the matter, but not something that merits space in a large article.
Oh -- and Wikipedia has quite a number of guidelines about article size. Somehow, people managed to cover, oh, the Second World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, the American Civil War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict without having everything on a main page. To insist that a page can't be thoroughly annotated links conflicts with the basic principles of web design, not Wikipedia rules. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Question ; Would it help to have a section headed "The CIA in popular culture" ? There are many culturally significant aspects of the agency and the way it is percieved by popular culture. Films, books, music, and even art make references to the shadow world of secret agencies and the spies that work for and against the west. Possibly a distraction to the main thrust of the article, but judicious editing could allow a paragraph .Thanks, wikipedians. Ern malleyscrub ( talk) 08:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally (a term in need of better definition), I would not post a link to humor about Wikipedia on the discussion page associated with the main article on the Central Intelligence Agency, but I know Howard C. Berkowitz "watches" this page, because he wrote most of it, and he is a published author whom life has chosen to short-change in the fame category, in my not-so-humble opinion. So I put the link below here to bring a smile to your face, Howard, and goodness knows how many other people. Write back any time. Like I said in my last post script, Gmail really does put some weird Google AdSense text advertisements in the right-hand column of my screen when we correspond about IC-related matters.
http://www.wired.com/print/techbiz/people/magazine/16-08/pl_brown
Plausible to deny ( talk) 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this section is stating without enough "neutrality" that "At the same time there are the number of the online advices of how to protect yourself (especially if you are a moslem) from the CIA: http://moslemonthewar.livejournal.com/" In this site there a number of quite controversial statements. I think that the controversial nature of the site should be mentioned in the article. One statement as an example: "google is the company established by the cia" ... have a look for more yourself! ---vd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.127.117 ( talk) 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi NYCJosh,
IP 213.135.123.19 is from Russian Federation(RU) in region Eastern Europe.
This IP and variants IP 83.146.64.203 and 83.146.64.204 (all from Russia) have been used to repeatedly post the same paragraph which purports to give names of CIA employees, citing an article in Russian for the list of names. (The article doesn't actually report those names.) Let's consider some possibilities:
What are your feelings about each these possibilities?
Thanks, Erxnmedia ( talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The question is whether posting real or fake names of current CIA employees is something that should be allowed to stay even in the talk page. While we've been joking around the names have been sitting there for days.
Erxnmedia ( talk) 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I finally had a moment to go through and make some of the changes that we'd been talking about. I moved the presidential reports, etc. to their very own article, and have elaborated on a few sections that were missing any kind of explanation (namely the War Criminals section and the Drug Trafficking section). I've also added a section that I hope summarizes the CIA transnational human rights actions article. NYCJosh, you'll see I even made a direct statement about the Red Cross report, using your wording, so I hope that is a satisfactory compromise. If you are unhappy about the detail of this report as provided in the CIA transnational human rights actions article, please feel free to edit that article.
I by no means claim that these changes constitute exactly what we were all thinking, and if any of you wish to amend my work in any way, I encourage you to do so. Cheers, ( Morethan3words ( talk) 17:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC))
I'm not sure if Howard and Plausible are still watching this page, but I was reading the article again and was thinking that we could also move the section on the organization of the CIA into its own article and leave a more brief discussion of it here. The current discussion of it is quite lengthy and intricate, and certainly more than enough information for its own article, but I wanted to raise the idea here before I make any move. Any objections?
If not, I will go ahead and make that move, clean the article a little more, and then I'm thinking we can go ahead with FA nomination. I know Howard and Plausible are not overly excited about the prospect, but I think the article is in pretty good shape, thanks almost entirely to Howard, and frankly I think it deserves to be amoungst Wiki's top articles, even if we have to change some organizational structure a little and fight some rather awkwardly bothersome battles.
If no objection comes in the next week or two I will go ahead with the above. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
There have been allegations that the CIA is losing its credibility not just in the U.S. but also worldwide. South Bay ( talk) 08:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it true that the CIA is only 'authorized' to work outside of the country? Of course, ever since September 11th, this would be a debatable topic. But, is it on the books as that it is/isn't? -- Angelus Delapsus Talk 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've made the change that I talked about above with regard to the organizational structure of the CIA. Due credit goes to Howard again, as well as everyone working with him over on Citizendium, as I took the liberty of stealing a lot of the format and wording of the re-write here from their CIA article over on Citizendium, which can be found here. They are not identical, I cut out some things I felt would be better addressed in the main article, but they have plenty in common.
So, what do we think? Should I go ahead with FA nomination? or is there still more work that needs to be done? ( Morethan3words ( talk) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
In any case, I have finished my clean-up, and welcome some thoughts. At this juncture I would prefer to hear what people think about the "balance of content" between each section, i.e., is each section adequately described in this article? Are there any that go into too much detail? Undoubtedly there will be concerns about format, citations, pictures, etc. but for now I want to make sure there is due consensus on overall content before moving on to those other issues. I would stress that this is not an open invitation for people to demand more content for their particular pet interest. There is an awful lot of content out there in the supporting articles, and I dare say that almost all issues related to the CIA are pretty well covered somewhere. If someone thinks there should be more or less content on a specific section, I am going to have to insist that they describe exactly what they wish to add/remove and exactly why the current section is not adequate to understand the basics of the issue, and to do so here on the talk page before making any change to the article.
At this critical juncture before nomination, I am letting you all know that I plan to revert any significant edit to the article that is not first discussed here on the talk page. This is not to be a jerk but simply to make sure there is due clarity and consensus on the article before nomination. I appreciate your understanding.
With due consideration to the caveats described above, I welcome any and all suggestions, concerns, outraged rants, and threats to my manhood. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
Thanks alot to both MBK and Niteshift36 for your help, these are both things I didn't notice/know was necessary. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 05:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
The $26.7b figure for intelligence budget in 1998 is for TOTAL intelligence, not just CIA. I removed that figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.27.29 ( talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The misleading budget figure of$26.7 b is still listed in the box on the right-hand side of the page. This figure should be removed as well, since it reflects the total IC budget, not CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptiger10 ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There are conspiracy theories out there that talk about a historic collaboration between the CIA and the Vatican. For instance, John Foster Dulles had a son called Avery Dulles who later became a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. Other theories point to the fact that both the CIA and the Vatican were opposed to the Soviet Union during the 1980s, with the apparent help of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta in organizations such as Gladio. There is also the fact that both the CIA and the Vatican were opposed to marxist regimes in Latin America during the same historical period. It would be interesting if this could be noted down at some point with relevant sources. ADM ( talk) 11:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The CIA is one of the most corrupt organizations the world has ever seen. Pretty soon they will have to torture themselves to get a pay raise. 204.133.215.130 ( talk) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can the 1953 Iranian coup d'état be mentioned as a project targeted at self-intrest (predominantly regarding oil) and as a faulty tactic regarding the safeguarding of peace and global progress/prosperity See also: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.207.26 ( talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to make more precise some of the parts of the article where citations are lacking and needed (the banner at the top of the article is not very helpful in this respect!). In regard to the request at the top of the talk page for reassessment of good article status, such reassessment will be needed if citation issues are not addressed. Geometry guy 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article needs many changes to meet the criteria and to remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed:
This article is obviously an important topic, and because of its large size, a lot of work is needed to maintain and improve it. Because of the amount of changes required, the article is going to differ significantly afterwards. I will likely need to re-review the article again after the above issues are addressed. While many of these are easy to address and will not require much time, some will definitely take a while to accomplish (mainly the sourcing). Due to the amount of the workload, I am going to present two options. I can leave the article on hold for a week at a time, where I will check the ongoing progress and will keep the article if all of the issues are addressed within a few weeks. Or, if you believe the above issues will take more than a few weeks or can't be addressed at this time (lack of sources to find cites, for example), I can fail the article now. The article can then be re-nominated at WP:GAN once all of the above issues are addressed, or I can re-review the article for you. Let me know what you would consider the best option. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the above comments, it appears that the issues will not be able to be addressed in the coming weeks. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. I'll be happy to re-review the article or at least give it another look if you want to nominate it at GAN. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. This is an important topic, and I'd like to see it return to GA and hopefully FA at some point. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I would like to propose an idea of adding a list of notable figures who work or worked for the CIA and became shark food for the media to chomp on. Ronewirl ( talk) 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The CIA has often been accused of being associated with the US Freemasons. The article should consider either debunking this conspiracy theory or researching it with sources. ADM ( talk) 07:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Or why not write up connections between the CIA and the Unhindered Candlestick Makers.... 68.157.21.233 ( talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
While it's unlikely that specific details of a sensitive nature will be made available to the public, it should be noted that CIA Director Leon Panetta announced on July 10, 2009 that a covert program unknown to Congress for eight years had been terminated. Panetta has launched an internal investigation as to why Congress was not informed about the program. [2] Xin Jing ( talk) 18:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not read in the article where it says where the CIA is organizationally within the U.S. government. Is it a part of the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Justice, is it an independent agency (like the FCC) or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 ( talk) 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should add a new section to declare what type of wepaons (guns) the CIA use? Thank you ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC))
Good point, but how about if we include a section of some firearms they use? I am very sure that the CIA use guns with silencers on them. ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 20:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
I suggest that terming the 1993 Rt.123 shootings a security "failure" is more a matter of opinion than fact. Also, the phrase "attack on CIA headquarters" is incorrect. The shootings occured 200 ft outside the CIA perimeter and 400 ft from the main gate, on a public road.
As such it seems unreasonable to expect CIA security to prevent an attack such as this.
I propose this section be removed. Mikeroetto ( talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It said within the article that the CIA had absorbed all of DIA's HUMINT capabilities. This is not true. The DIA still has overt HUMINT collection. I deleted the misleading section.
NOC or "Gun for Hire" ?
Non-Official Coverage Agent recruited by organic CIA Agent to do frontline legworks for the Agency. Adhoc Agent with the U.S. Secret Service was as such, as 1986 Presidential Security for visiting Philippine President Cory Aquino to Washington Dc.. Carpenter Arpa awarded Meritorious Award and Commendation while as a Pentagon Resident serving on active duty service in the United States Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.229.112 ( talk) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, heard of a NOC who gotten a Presidential Citation Award who also served as such in the Navy. Also as such and a war veteran who seem to have disappeared with no more knowledge of his whereabouts and uncanningly lost his family-brothers and sisters included along with his wife and children. You are one lucky man. But not as lucky as NOC-Alvin Siglos (missing reward money) that not his direct family knows of his whereabouts since the time of ASG Abu Sabaya in the Southern Philippines. Could he be with the WPG locally or abroad, or with the Devil. Lucky you and your famlies.
The passages above may make sense to the writers, but they are in need of serious editing from a native English speaker. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.171.176.28 (
talk)
22:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
"Conspiracy? The CIA and the Nazis" produced by Towers Productions, Inc. for the History Channel, copyright 2004 A&E Television Networks might serve as a possible reference for those seeking to expand this article. Official site. Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squideshi ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The article lists the 1993 shooting near their entrance as a CIA security failure. I don't feel this is valid. The shootings happened without warning, on public property, not on CIA property. The security forces at the CIA headquarters had no authority out on that public road, nor was it part of their responsibility. If something happened out there, they were to call local law enforcement. So how are we calling something they didn't have repsonsibility for a failure? Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Have gone way beyond "Above and Beyond" fellas. NOCs are better-off than that, taken extreme care.
Taking responsibility of...perhaps not so in a way although tecnically right considering that the agency or company have the responibility of national security. It does amply implies the same responsibility when overseas. however, the circumstances in the shooting, there was an alternative respondent/s if called upon. Since the call was never made, the situation was aslike being overseas or abroad made a responsibility. A security failure only if the local law enforcement was called. Otherwise, personally. I think it was permissable. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.54.47.53 (
talk)
16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Impossible Mission Force or Central Intelligence Agency Forces. This two may be one and the same, isn't it. Featured in movies as MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, THE AGENCY. THE CORPORATION OR COMPANY. It seek to control world events in the carrying out of safety measures for national security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.47.53 ( talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"In its operational role, some successes for the CIA include the U-2 and SR-71 programs, and anti-Soviet operations in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s"
This is listed under the controversies section of the article. If I am not mistaken, these anti-Soviet operations are responsible for helping to train Osama Bin-Laden during Operation Cyclone, which would not be considered a "success" for the United States. 68.153.29.23 ( talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Every once in a while I notice a site with a comparatively high level of watchers with a comparatively low frequency of readers. CIA is high on the list.... Gee, I wonder why... :)
Wow... This reads almost like the summary of the CIA as might be found on their own website. The CIA supports any group or person worldwide that opposes left-wing politics and has probably committed or funded more acts of terrorism than any other organization worldwide. This may be the most heavily biased article on all of Wikipedia.
Wannabe rockstar ( talk) 12:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The CIA scandal, similar to Cointelpro, is MKULTRA. There is an MKULTRA entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This article appears to be very 'one-sided', meaning that it comes from an anti-CIA point of veiw, calling the persons responsible for the protection (and sometimes failure to protect) our loved ones. Wikipedia should "maintain an unbiased point of veiw", as stated by the site administrator. Waterboarding is a means of extracting useful information from MEN WHO WANT TO HARM AMERICANS. There was once a waterboarding inflicted on a terrorist who ended up talking of a plot to bring down a major bridge in New York City. Investigators acted on this information and found the tools to cut the cables of the bridge in a suspect's apartment, thus saving many people from harm. Waterboarding is HARMLESS. It is a tool used to frighten a victim in the extreme. If you ask me, reading about what liberals are doing in Washington, D.C. is frightening! Pumanike ( talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The objection to waterboarding is it violates humane treatment of prisoners. The USA has never before permitted torture of a prisoner to extract information. Also, it may be PHYSICALLY harmless, but it does psychological damage. That is why it is considered immoral and illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Waterboarding is torture and is not physically harmless. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
114.155.240.153 (
talk)
01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I see vast misinformation in this article. The DNI, for example, is a completely separate entity from the CIA and has no acronym, but that is just a minor point. I am a CIA Operative myself and I would personally prefer more truthful information here for the general public because this artcile could be a useful recruitment tool, and it badly discourages recruits when they find out that everything they ever thought they knew about the CIA was a fabrication. I would recommend government service to anybody, certainly, but we are at a time in history when the overzealous members of our government protect sensitive information by spreading falsehoods which could create more confusion and problems than they solve. Please check the official CIA website for more accurate information. I don't know who posted this stuff here but I'm asking my department to consider posting a full revision that is more accurate and cleared for public disclosure. We are finding recently that "leaky espionage" and selective truth-telling are really valuable for recruitment as well as other things. In the Biblical book of Sirach, there is a scripture passage in a section on "Conduct in Public Life" which esentially reads, "Telling lie after lie is no good." Truly, it seems like government misinformation has to ebb, really, since we have reached a point where the American public has little hold on reality. Naturally, there will always be secrets and secrecy over national security issues, which is simply prudent, but basic honesty with the public has been overwhelmingly positive so far, and I would personally like to see how far we can go with intentional disclosures to the public. I'll post some of my code names here in case somebody wants an ethical debate. I'm known as "h" in the United Kingdom, "Leviathan" in France, "667" in Russia, "Mr. Taco" in China, and the international community knows me as both "g" and "Zero." The material posted here in this article makes the CIA sound very nefarious and intimidating, but that is not the way I perceive it as a spy who has worked overseas. We maintain a family-oriented atomosphere and field agents are treated wonderful most of the time by management, since you can't get very far with what we do in any other way. The Company has a no-commitment pledge program that can let you try out some simple tasks to "grow your legs" and show us what you can do without getting into anything where you would feel in over your head. Like I said, I would recommend working for the CIA to anybody. Thanks for reading and have a nice day. -"Montgomery," "Priest." Message permitted and approved by 'Frank' 12 August 2010 from D Department. D Department rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.159.47 ( talk) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
What is on the talk page can never degrade Wikipedia's "quality and integrity" (if they're beneficial, the article will be changed, if not and the article changed, it's the editor's fault, not the talk page) Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset ( talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Should this be relevant on the article. Link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.2.108 ( talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is obviously written in a very liberal, anti-CIA point of view, and lacking citations for most of the alleged wrongdoings. I myself am not a fan of the CIA, but if you're going to be this biased against an organization, make it less obvious. Controversy sections need to be shorted or made into separate articles and they need to have citations. I don't think I have seen any articles of organizations on Wikipedia that are as negative as this one. More than half the article is accusation, controversy, and conspiracy, much of it lacking citation, making this one of the most poorly written articles on Wikipedia. Once again, if you are going to hijack and sabotage an article, make it more subtle and less obvious than this. 98.174.220.8 ( talk) 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thom689 (
talk)
18:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The section on drug trafficking doesn't mention that there is more research still pointing to CIA involvement in drugs (and should include references to that research, especially in light of mainstream media attempts to discredit the research of Gary Webb, one of the only journalists/academics whose research actually is referenced here). The Kerry Committee report, the book Cocaine Politics by Dale-Scott/Marshall or the book Out of Control by Leslie Cockburn, all came out long before Webb's 1996 research and point to far more evidence of CIA involvement with traffickers than what Webb uncovered. Webb's research was strictly related to Meneses and Blandon, the California Contra traffickers, anyhow: not the actual Contra supply chain operatives related to the CIA and North, such as Noriega, the CIA-affiliated Cuban Exiles, and Juan Matta-Ballesteros's SETCO company, John Hull, in other words all the parties involved in the Contras who were proven by the Kerry Committee -- unreferenced here -- to have been involved with drugs... the CIA was ultimately criticized by that report for "at best" condoning and judicially protecting drug traffickers' activities knowingly, or "at worst" carrying out the practice of "ticket punching" (quoting report) whereby known traffickers were given diplomatic cover and pay in exchange for coordinating contra supply logistics. My point is, those are the real meat of CIA drug trafficking allegations from the Contra period, that is, everything that appeared *before* Webb's research on the California connection. That (findings of the Kerry Report, the research findings of the "Cocaine Politics" and "Out of Control" books) should be included, with explanation that the Kerry Committee was institutionally prevented from even uncovering all available evidence (see rider to the report that claims -- paraphrasing -- "Even this report may have been compromised due to executive branch attempts to stifle it" -- see also Kerry's public statement that he ceased investigating one particular CIA-drug connection due to what he called a "special agreement" of his with another Senator). And we should also include, with regard to Webb's research, the response of the CIA (the Hitz investigation, which attempted to deny some of Webb's allegations, stated it "couldn't find evidence" of its own to support other allegations, and confirmed a few allegations while uncovering some interesting new information on its own). I realize there is a main page for this, which is linked, but as of now the drug trafficking section gives undue weight to certain things, doesn't mention other pivotally important facts, and is a mess of "citation needed" tags. Let's give it a much due revamp. (Heroin trafficking by the CIA during the Vietnam period is also barely mentioned here, with too much weight given to the obscure CIA defense of why they did it, and should be clarified/expanded) 173.3.41.6 ( talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The address of the headquarter of MicroStrategy is
1861, International Drive McLean Virginia
It is 5 miles from the headquarter of the CIA in Langley.
-- No Mercy Now ( talk) 11:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: 58 year old retired General David Petraeus, until recently commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been elected head of Central Intelligence Agency. This suggests that the main priority of the United States even more effective fight against terrorism. Besides the 37 year military career, Petraeus has been thoroughly educated. Doctorate in international relations on the lessons for the U.S. Army in the Vietnam war, and was a professor. These are all the arguments for the thesis that General David Petraeus can be a good president of the United States. It is this possibility with the right moment wisely denied. Because it is the first task to perform well the current function, and depending on that, it opens the possibility to enter into high politics. 93.137.48.184 ( talk) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Made a couple of edits in the intro of the article. The cia isnt what people make it out to be in the movies and i just wanted to give the article a more "realistic" tone. so i rewrote a couple of things. let me know what you think Theamazingspiderman20 ( talk) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ron Rewald was a Hawaii investment banker convicted of running a Ponzi scheme in the 1980s. He claimed that he was working as an agent for the CIA, and there's evidence that it was involved in some way. Would it be reasonable to add the Ron Rewald article to Category:CIA agents with criminal convictions given that there's no definitive proof that he was a CIA agent? Pburka ( talk) 13:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article reads: "It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers through means of covert psychological, cyber, and social warfare using non-military commissioned civilian Intelligence Agents to carry out these intelligence-gathering operations; many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations."
In my opinion, that whole sentence is poorly written, factually questionable, and misleading. As detailed elsewhere in the article, CIA uses many techniques to provide national security intelligence assessment that do not involve any sort of warfare; covert, psychological, cyber, social, or otherwise. The sentence implies that all of the CIA's intelligence gathering is performed by means of warfare, which is false.
I suggest replacing it with the following two sentences: "It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers. Intelligence gathering is performed by non-military commissioned civilian Intelligence Agents; many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.182.14 ( talk) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
On CIA headquarters in history:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: CIA chief David Petraeus was a former military commander of the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. He has combat experience. Minister of Defence Leon Panetta is a former CIA chief. He has intelligence experience. Together they are a wining combination of defense and U.S. national security. 93.137.38.80 ( talk) 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I confess that I miss User:Hcberkowitz now that he has moved on to Citizendium, where his contributions are as eclectic as they are prolific: [1] Another editor, User:Morethan3words apparently broached the subject of nominating this article for Featured Article status, and Howard replied non-commitally on his talk page: [2]. This article (and the entire set of sub-articles it wikilinks to is so vastly better than it was last Decemeber before Howard took it upon himself to overhaul them that I think it would be a nice tribute to his Wikipedia scholarship if it became an FA. That said, I would not take it upon myself to try to shepherd it through the FA process; I just don't personally want to get involved in the deliberative process of the Wikipedia community. And in his reply to User:Morethan3words, Howard points out a valid downside to the FA review process, i.e., we might have to re-fight all sorts of previously resolved conflicts about content when a new group of editors descend on the article. Still, I think it's worth doing if some activisit editor wants to take it on. I don't even maintain a watchlist, so I couldn't keep up with vandals, trolls and other assorted mischief-makers. Any takers to the idea? Plausible to deny ( talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC))
Peer reviewers still think we're too big. I think present size is open for defense, but one tangible suggestion was "Could the whole 'Internal/presidential studies, external investigations and document releases' section be a sub-article?" What do we think? Any other ways to make it smaller? Should we at all? ( Morethan3words ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
While I've taken a break from active editing, I still periodically look at my watchlist. As many of you know, I and others have tried to keep the size of the main CIA article manageable, without actually losing any date because all relevant content was moved to a hierarchy of subarticles. (comment;Do you mean "data", not date?````) I notice that yet again, Frank Freeman has started expanding al-Qaeda related content on the main page, after repeated entreaties to put that material in CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities and region/country-specific articles. None of his content has ever been deleted, just moved to an appropriate subpage. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Today, I notice that his edits completely removed the link to CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities. I did not stop editing because I believed there was only one "party line". I did not stop editing because I thought a hierarchy of articles, on a complex subject, was unworkable.
In large part, I stopped editing because I was very tired of trying to get consensus on a useful structure, and, when consensus seemed to exist, having any of a number of people move content to the appropriate subarticle.
I am grateful to the people that expressed appreciation of what I was trying to do. While I don't know if "revert war" is quite the term for what Mr. Freeman seems to be doing, it is an example of the constant "push one's own issue" approach that I got very tired of maintaining.
If anyone thinks my past ideas have been useful, I'd encourage you to try to resolve this constant creeping of al-Qaida in Brooklyn material onto the main article. If I'm the only person that cares about having a manageable lead article, then, clearly, it is inappropriate for me to impose my views on a community. I'll be curious to see if there really is any community interest here.
Thank you.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Silly me. And I thought there was an entire article, CIA transnational human rights actions, that was intended to discuss concerns in detail, give historical background, and compare and contrast trends. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not study the artice in depth with a view to making it more succinct, as perhaps some others did. However, to give just two example, the article has a screenfull (on my monitor, normal font) on the 1949 Dulles-Jackson report, and over a screenfull on the 1956 Bruce-Lovett report. There reports are important, but certainly a paragraph or two on each with a link to an article on each subject would appear to suffice. In the meantime, are you saying that a brief discussion of war crimes culpability and how the CIA might have incriminated senior administration officials therefor is not warranted in the main article? BTW, the article to which my contribution was supposedly transferred, CIA transnational human rights actions, makes no mention of war crimes as of this writing. I am beginning to think Plausible has a point when he surmises that there may be Agency plants here. As shown by independent studies (I can't cite the NY Times article date off the top of my head, government agencies and major corporations have officially unaffiliated contractors who monitor selected WP articles to avoid PR damage.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
First, I have absolutely no problem with the details of some of the past investigations and studies going to a sub-article linked to the main article, as long as the content is not lost. The key points that do belong in the main article, besides links, are to establish that the original legislation was inadequate, and some of the historic improprieties in the 1947-1952 (and slightly later) period came precisely because OPC was really out of control. In like manner, some of the protection of Japanese and German war criminals -- Ishii still makes me furious -- happened before the CIA existed.
As not too much of an aside, that latter point has broad relevance. When I wrote articles on U.S. involvement with Nazi and Japanese war criminals, I explicitly did not title them "CIA involvement", because a number of the deals were struck by Army Intelligence in 1945-1947, before the CIA even existed. Other things before the "Directorate of Plans" existed, into the early fifties, also need to be seen as a lack of oversight -- if Wisner didn't like what the DCI said, he could go to State or Defense until someone gave him permission.
Another aspect is that some of the questionable operations did not initiate in the CIA, but at White House level, under presidents of different parties. For example, it's pretty well established that the assassination attempts against Castro came from Robert and John Kennedy, mostly in that order. Whether someone in CIA should have refused or gone public is a quite different matter, to which I have no simple answer. There were some questionable operations in Africa and Asia that originated during the Eisenhower administration. MKULTRA, in contrast, was clearly CIA initiated and should never have happened.
Today (and for the last couple of years), we have the problem that some functions previously under CIA are now under the DNI, and other functions (including covert action) may be under DoD. CIA is not synonymous with U.S. intelligence, and, going forward, I don't know the best way to handle this. For example, the National Intelligence Council is in the ODNI, no longer reporting to a function (DCI) that no longer exists. To cite a "CIA NIE" after the ODNI was established is nonsensical.
I haven't gotten into the meat of the current war crimes issue, but there is a difference between "may have implicated" and, as in the case of Barbie, "a competent court determined". For that matter, the Valerie Plame Wilson matter again had a lot more specifics than "may have". It's questionable if speculation belongs in Wikipedia at all, but, if there are allegations, I see those as legitimate topics for an article about the progress in the matter, but not something that merits space in a large article.
Oh -- and Wikipedia has quite a number of guidelines about article size. Somehow, people managed to cover, oh, the Second World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, the American Civil War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict without having everything on a main page. To insist that a page can't be thoroughly annotated links conflicts with the basic principles of web design, not Wikipedia rules. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Question ; Would it help to have a section headed "The CIA in popular culture" ? There are many culturally significant aspects of the agency and the way it is percieved by popular culture. Films, books, music, and even art make references to the shadow world of secret agencies and the spies that work for and against the west. Possibly a distraction to the main thrust of the article, but judicious editing could allow a paragraph .Thanks, wikipedians. Ern malleyscrub ( talk) 08:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Normally (a term in need of better definition), I would not post a link to humor about Wikipedia on the discussion page associated with the main article on the Central Intelligence Agency, but I know Howard C. Berkowitz "watches" this page, because he wrote most of it, and he is a published author whom life has chosen to short-change in the fame category, in my not-so-humble opinion. So I put the link below here to bring a smile to your face, Howard, and goodness knows how many other people. Write back any time. Like I said in my last post script, Gmail really does put some weird Google AdSense text advertisements in the right-hand column of my screen when we correspond about IC-related matters.
http://www.wired.com/print/techbiz/people/magazine/16-08/pl_brown
Plausible to deny ( talk) 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this section is stating without enough "neutrality" that "At the same time there are the number of the online advices of how to protect yourself (especially if you are a moslem) from the CIA: http://moslemonthewar.livejournal.com/" In this site there a number of quite controversial statements. I think that the controversial nature of the site should be mentioned in the article. One statement as an example: "google is the company established by the cia" ... have a look for more yourself! ---vd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.127.117 ( talk) 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi NYCJosh,
IP 213.135.123.19 is from Russian Federation(RU) in region Eastern Europe.
This IP and variants IP 83.146.64.203 and 83.146.64.204 (all from Russia) have been used to repeatedly post the same paragraph which purports to give names of CIA employees, citing an article in Russian for the list of names. (The article doesn't actually report those names.) Let's consider some possibilities:
What are your feelings about each these possibilities?
Thanks, Erxnmedia ( talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The question is whether posting real or fake names of current CIA employees is something that should be allowed to stay even in the talk page. While we've been joking around the names have been sitting there for days.
Erxnmedia ( talk) 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I finally had a moment to go through and make some of the changes that we'd been talking about. I moved the presidential reports, etc. to their very own article, and have elaborated on a few sections that were missing any kind of explanation (namely the War Criminals section and the Drug Trafficking section). I've also added a section that I hope summarizes the CIA transnational human rights actions article. NYCJosh, you'll see I even made a direct statement about the Red Cross report, using your wording, so I hope that is a satisfactory compromise. If you are unhappy about the detail of this report as provided in the CIA transnational human rights actions article, please feel free to edit that article.
I by no means claim that these changes constitute exactly what we were all thinking, and if any of you wish to amend my work in any way, I encourage you to do so. Cheers, ( Morethan3words ( talk) 17:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC))
I'm not sure if Howard and Plausible are still watching this page, but I was reading the article again and was thinking that we could also move the section on the organization of the CIA into its own article and leave a more brief discussion of it here. The current discussion of it is quite lengthy and intricate, and certainly more than enough information for its own article, but I wanted to raise the idea here before I make any move. Any objections?
If not, I will go ahead and make that move, clean the article a little more, and then I'm thinking we can go ahead with FA nomination. I know Howard and Plausible are not overly excited about the prospect, but I think the article is in pretty good shape, thanks almost entirely to Howard, and frankly I think it deserves to be amoungst Wiki's top articles, even if we have to change some organizational structure a little and fight some rather awkwardly bothersome battles.
If no objection comes in the next week or two I will go ahead with the above. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
There have been allegations that the CIA is losing its credibility not just in the U.S. but also worldwide. South Bay ( talk) 08:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it true that the CIA is only 'authorized' to work outside of the country? Of course, ever since September 11th, this would be a debatable topic. But, is it on the books as that it is/isn't? -- Angelus Delapsus Talk 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've made the change that I talked about above with regard to the organizational structure of the CIA. Due credit goes to Howard again, as well as everyone working with him over on Citizendium, as I took the liberty of stealing a lot of the format and wording of the re-write here from their CIA article over on Citizendium, which can be found here. They are not identical, I cut out some things I felt would be better addressed in the main article, but they have plenty in common.
So, what do we think? Should I go ahead with FA nomination? or is there still more work that needs to be done? ( Morethan3words ( talk) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
In any case, I have finished my clean-up, and welcome some thoughts. At this juncture I would prefer to hear what people think about the "balance of content" between each section, i.e., is each section adequately described in this article? Are there any that go into too much detail? Undoubtedly there will be concerns about format, citations, pictures, etc. but for now I want to make sure there is due consensus on overall content before moving on to those other issues. I would stress that this is not an open invitation for people to demand more content for their particular pet interest. There is an awful lot of content out there in the supporting articles, and I dare say that almost all issues related to the CIA are pretty well covered somewhere. If someone thinks there should be more or less content on a specific section, I am going to have to insist that they describe exactly what they wish to add/remove and exactly why the current section is not adequate to understand the basics of the issue, and to do so here on the talk page before making any change to the article.
At this critical juncture before nomination, I am letting you all know that I plan to revert any significant edit to the article that is not first discussed here on the talk page. This is not to be a jerk but simply to make sure there is due clarity and consensus on the article before nomination. I appreciate your understanding.
With due consideration to the caveats described above, I welcome any and all suggestions, concerns, outraged rants, and threats to my manhood. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
Thanks alot to both MBK and Niteshift36 for your help, these are both things I didn't notice/know was necessary. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 05:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
The $26.7b figure for intelligence budget in 1998 is for TOTAL intelligence, not just CIA. I removed that figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.27.29 ( talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The misleading budget figure of$26.7 b is still listed in the box on the right-hand side of the page. This figure should be removed as well, since it reflects the total IC budget, not CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptiger10 ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There are conspiracy theories out there that talk about a historic collaboration between the CIA and the Vatican. For instance, John Foster Dulles had a son called Avery Dulles who later became a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. Other theories point to the fact that both the CIA and the Vatican were opposed to the Soviet Union during the 1980s, with the apparent help of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta in organizations such as Gladio. There is also the fact that both the CIA and the Vatican were opposed to marxist regimes in Latin America during the same historical period. It would be interesting if this could be noted down at some point with relevant sources. ADM ( talk) 11:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The CIA is one of the most corrupt organizations the world has ever seen. Pretty soon they will have to torture themselves to get a pay raise. 204.133.215.130 ( talk) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can the 1953 Iranian coup d'état be mentioned as a project targeted at self-intrest (predominantly regarding oil) and as a faulty tactic regarding the safeguarding of peace and global progress/prosperity See also: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.207.26 ( talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to make more precise some of the parts of the article where citations are lacking and needed (the banner at the top of the article is not very helpful in this respect!). In regard to the request at the top of the talk page for reassessment of good article status, such reassessment will be needed if citation issues are not addressed. Geometry guy 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article needs many changes to meet the criteria and to remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed:
This article is obviously an important topic, and because of its large size, a lot of work is needed to maintain and improve it. Because of the amount of changes required, the article is going to differ significantly afterwards. I will likely need to re-review the article again after the above issues are addressed. While many of these are easy to address and will not require much time, some will definitely take a while to accomplish (mainly the sourcing). Due to the amount of the workload, I am going to present two options. I can leave the article on hold for a week at a time, where I will check the ongoing progress and will keep the article if all of the issues are addressed within a few weeks. Or, if you believe the above issues will take more than a few weeks or can't be addressed at this time (lack of sources to find cites, for example), I can fail the article now. The article can then be re-nominated at WP:GAN once all of the above issues are addressed, or I can re-review the article for you. Let me know what you would consider the best option. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the above comments, it appears that the issues will not be able to be addressed in the coming weeks. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. I'll be happy to re-review the article or at least give it another look if you want to nominate it at GAN. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. This is an important topic, and I'd like to see it return to GA and hopefully FA at some point. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I would like to propose an idea of adding a list of notable figures who work or worked for the CIA and became shark food for the media to chomp on. Ronewirl ( talk) 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The CIA has often been accused of being associated with the US Freemasons. The article should consider either debunking this conspiracy theory or researching it with sources. ADM ( talk) 07:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Or why not write up connections between the CIA and the Unhindered Candlestick Makers.... 68.157.21.233 ( talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
While it's unlikely that specific details of a sensitive nature will be made available to the public, it should be noted that CIA Director Leon Panetta announced on July 10, 2009 that a covert program unknown to Congress for eight years had been terminated. Panetta has launched an internal investigation as to why Congress was not informed about the program. [2] Xin Jing ( talk) 18:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not read in the article where it says where the CIA is organizationally within the U.S. government. Is it a part of the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Justice, is it an independent agency (like the FCC) or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 ( talk) 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should add a new section to declare what type of wepaons (guns) the CIA use? Thank you ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC))
Good point, but how about if we include a section of some firearms they use? I am very sure that the CIA use guns with silencers on them. ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 20:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
I suggest that terming the 1993 Rt.123 shootings a security "failure" is more a matter of opinion than fact. Also, the phrase "attack on CIA headquarters" is incorrect. The shootings occured 200 ft outside the CIA perimeter and 400 ft from the main gate, on a public road.
As such it seems unreasonable to expect CIA security to prevent an attack such as this.
I propose this section be removed. Mikeroetto ( talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It said within the article that the CIA had absorbed all of DIA's HUMINT capabilities. This is not true. The DIA still has overt HUMINT collection. I deleted the misleading section.
NOC or "Gun for Hire" ?
Non-Official Coverage Agent recruited by organic CIA Agent to do frontline legworks for the Agency. Adhoc Agent with the U.S. Secret Service was as such, as 1986 Presidential Security for visiting Philippine President Cory Aquino to Washington Dc.. Carpenter Arpa awarded Meritorious Award and Commendation while as a Pentagon Resident serving on active duty service in the United States Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.229.112 ( talk) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, heard of a NOC who gotten a Presidential Citation Award who also served as such in the Navy. Also as such and a war veteran who seem to have disappeared with no more knowledge of his whereabouts and uncanningly lost his family-brothers and sisters included along with his wife and children. You are one lucky man. But not as lucky as NOC-Alvin Siglos (missing reward money) that not his direct family knows of his whereabouts since the time of ASG Abu Sabaya in the Southern Philippines. Could he be with the WPG locally or abroad, or with the Devil. Lucky you and your famlies.
The passages above may make sense to the writers, but they are in need of serious editing from a native English speaker. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.171.176.28 (
talk)
22:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
"Conspiracy? The CIA and the Nazis" produced by Towers Productions, Inc. for the History Channel, copyright 2004 A&E Television Networks might serve as a possible reference for those seeking to expand this article. Official site. Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squideshi ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The article lists the 1993 shooting near their entrance as a CIA security failure. I don't feel this is valid. The shootings happened without warning, on public property, not on CIA property. The security forces at the CIA headquarters had no authority out on that public road, nor was it part of their responsibility. If something happened out there, they were to call local law enforcement. So how are we calling something they didn't have repsonsibility for a failure? Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Have gone way beyond "Above and Beyond" fellas. NOCs are better-off than that, taken extreme care.
Taking responsibility of...perhaps not so in a way although tecnically right considering that the agency or company have the responibility of national security. It does amply implies the same responsibility when overseas. however, the circumstances in the shooting, there was an alternative respondent/s if called upon. Since the call was never made, the situation was aslike being overseas or abroad made a responsibility. A security failure only if the local law enforcement was called. Otherwise, personally. I think it was permissable. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.54.47.53 (
talk)
16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Impossible Mission Force or Central Intelligence Agency Forces. This two may be one and the same, isn't it. Featured in movies as MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, THE AGENCY. THE CORPORATION OR COMPANY. It seek to control world events in the carrying out of safety measures for national security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.47.53 ( talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"In its operational role, some successes for the CIA include the U-2 and SR-71 programs, and anti-Soviet operations in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s"
This is listed under the controversies section of the article. If I am not mistaken, these anti-Soviet operations are responsible for helping to train Osama Bin-Laden during Operation Cyclone, which would not be considered a "success" for the United States. 68.153.29.23 ( talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Every once in a while I notice a site with a comparatively high level of watchers with a comparatively low frequency of readers. CIA is high on the list.... Gee, I wonder why... :)
Wow... This reads almost like the summary of the CIA as might be found on their own website. The CIA supports any group or person worldwide that opposes left-wing politics and has probably committed or funded more acts of terrorism than any other organization worldwide. This may be the most heavily biased article on all of Wikipedia.
Wannabe rockstar ( talk) 12:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The CIA scandal, similar to Cointelpro, is MKULTRA. There is an MKULTRA entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This article appears to be very 'one-sided', meaning that it comes from an anti-CIA point of veiw, calling the persons responsible for the protection (and sometimes failure to protect) our loved ones. Wikipedia should "maintain an unbiased point of veiw", as stated by the site administrator. Waterboarding is a means of extracting useful information from MEN WHO WANT TO HARM AMERICANS. There was once a waterboarding inflicted on a terrorist who ended up talking of a plot to bring down a major bridge in New York City. Investigators acted on this information and found the tools to cut the cables of the bridge in a suspect's apartment, thus saving many people from harm. Waterboarding is HARMLESS. It is a tool used to frighten a victim in the extreme. If you ask me, reading about what liberals are doing in Washington, D.C. is frightening! Pumanike ( talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The objection to waterboarding is it violates humane treatment of prisoners. The USA has never before permitted torture of a prisoner to extract information. Also, it may be PHYSICALLY harmless, but it does psychological damage. That is why it is considered immoral and illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Waterboarding is torture and is not physically harmless. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
114.155.240.153 (
talk)
01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I see vast misinformation in this article. The DNI, for example, is a completely separate entity from the CIA and has no acronym, but that is just a minor point. I am a CIA Operative myself and I would personally prefer more truthful information here for the general public because this artcile could be a useful recruitment tool, and it badly discourages recruits when they find out that everything they ever thought they knew about the CIA was a fabrication. I would recommend government service to anybody, certainly, but we are at a time in history when the overzealous members of our government protect sensitive information by spreading falsehoods which could create more confusion and problems than they solve. Please check the official CIA website for more accurate information. I don't know who posted this stuff here but I'm asking my department to consider posting a full revision that is more accurate and cleared for public disclosure. We are finding recently that "leaky espionage" and selective truth-telling are really valuable for recruitment as well as other things. In the Biblical book of Sirach, there is a scripture passage in a section on "Conduct in Public Life" which esentially reads, "Telling lie after lie is no good." Truly, it seems like government misinformation has to ebb, really, since we have reached a point where the American public has little hold on reality. Naturally, there will always be secrets and secrecy over national security issues, which is simply prudent, but basic honesty with the public has been overwhelmingly positive so far, and I would personally like to see how far we can go with intentional disclosures to the public. I'll post some of my code names here in case somebody wants an ethical debate. I'm known as "h" in the United Kingdom, "Leviathan" in France, "667" in Russia, "Mr. Taco" in China, and the international community knows me as both "g" and "Zero." The material posted here in this article makes the CIA sound very nefarious and intimidating, but that is not the way I perceive it as a spy who has worked overseas. We maintain a family-oriented atomosphere and field agents are treated wonderful most of the time by management, since you can't get very far with what we do in any other way. The Company has a no-commitment pledge program that can let you try out some simple tasks to "grow your legs" and show us what you can do without getting into anything where you would feel in over your head. Like I said, I would recommend working for the CIA to anybody. Thanks for reading and have a nice day. -"Montgomery," "Priest." Message permitted and approved by 'Frank' 12 August 2010 from D Department. D Department rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.159.47 ( talk) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
What is on the talk page can never degrade Wikipedia's "quality and integrity" (if they're beneficial, the article will be changed, if not and the article changed, it's the editor's fault, not the talk page) Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset ( talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Should this be relevant on the article. Link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.2.108 ( talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is obviously written in a very liberal, anti-CIA point of view, and lacking citations for most of the alleged wrongdoings. I myself am not a fan of the CIA, but if you're going to be this biased against an organization, make it less obvious. Controversy sections need to be shorted or made into separate articles and they need to have citations. I don't think I have seen any articles of organizations on Wikipedia that are as negative as this one. More than half the article is accusation, controversy, and conspiracy, much of it lacking citation, making this one of the most poorly written articles on Wikipedia. Once again, if you are going to hijack and sabotage an article, make it more subtle and less obvious than this. 98.174.220.8 ( talk) 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thom689 (
talk)
18:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The section on drug trafficking doesn't mention that there is more research still pointing to CIA involvement in drugs (and should include references to that research, especially in light of mainstream media attempts to discredit the research of Gary Webb, one of the only journalists/academics whose research actually is referenced here). The Kerry Committee report, the book Cocaine Politics by Dale-Scott/Marshall or the book Out of Control by Leslie Cockburn, all came out long before Webb's 1996 research and point to far more evidence of CIA involvement with traffickers than what Webb uncovered. Webb's research was strictly related to Meneses and Blandon, the California Contra traffickers, anyhow: not the actual Contra supply chain operatives related to the CIA and North, such as Noriega, the CIA-affiliated Cuban Exiles, and Juan Matta-Ballesteros's SETCO company, John Hull, in other words all the parties involved in the Contras who were proven by the Kerry Committee -- unreferenced here -- to have been involved with drugs... the CIA was ultimately criticized by that report for "at best" condoning and judicially protecting drug traffickers' activities knowingly, or "at worst" carrying out the practice of "ticket punching" (quoting report) whereby known traffickers were given diplomatic cover and pay in exchange for coordinating contra supply logistics. My point is, those are the real meat of CIA drug trafficking allegations from the Contra period, that is, everything that appeared *before* Webb's research on the California connection. That (findings of the Kerry Report, the research findings of the "Cocaine Politics" and "Out of Control" books) should be included, with explanation that the Kerry Committee was institutionally prevented from even uncovering all available evidence (see rider to the report that claims -- paraphrasing -- "Even this report may have been compromised due to executive branch attempts to stifle it" -- see also Kerry's public statement that he ceased investigating one particular CIA-drug connection due to what he called a "special agreement" of his with another Senator). And we should also include, with regard to Webb's research, the response of the CIA (the Hitz investigation, which attempted to deny some of Webb's allegations, stated it "couldn't find evidence" of its own to support other allegations, and confirmed a few allegations while uncovering some interesting new information on its own). I realize there is a main page for this, which is linked, but as of now the drug trafficking section gives undue weight to certain things, doesn't mention other pivotally important facts, and is a mess of "citation needed" tags. Let's give it a much due revamp. (Heroin trafficking by the CIA during the Vietnam period is also barely mentioned here, with too much weight given to the obscure CIA defense of why they did it, and should be clarified/expanded) 173.3.41.6 ( talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The address of the headquarter of MicroStrategy is
1861, International Drive McLean Virginia
It is 5 miles from the headquarter of the CIA in Langley.
-- No Mercy Now ( talk) 11:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: 58 year old retired General David Petraeus, until recently commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been elected head of Central Intelligence Agency. This suggests that the main priority of the United States even more effective fight against terrorism. Besides the 37 year military career, Petraeus has been thoroughly educated. Doctorate in international relations on the lessons for the U.S. Army in the Vietnam war, and was a professor. These are all the arguments for the thesis that General David Petraeus can be a good president of the United States. It is this possibility with the right moment wisely denied. Because it is the first task to perform well the current function, and depending on that, it opens the possibility to enter into high politics. 93.137.48.184 ( talk) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Made a couple of edits in the intro of the article. The cia isnt what people make it out to be in the movies and i just wanted to give the article a more "realistic" tone. so i rewrote a couple of things. let me know what you think Theamazingspiderman20 ( talk) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ron Rewald was a Hawaii investment banker convicted of running a Ponzi scheme in the 1980s. He claimed that he was working as an agent for the CIA, and there's evidence that it was involved in some way. Would it be reasonable to add the Ron Rewald article to Category:CIA agents with criminal convictions given that there's no definitive proof that he was a CIA agent? Pburka ( talk) 13:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article reads: "It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers through means of covert psychological, cyber, and social warfare using non-military commissioned civilian Intelligence Agents to carry out these intelligence-gathering operations; many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations."
In my opinion, that whole sentence is poorly written, factually questionable, and misleading. As detailed elsewhere in the article, CIA uses many techniques to provide national security intelligence assessment that do not involve any sort of warfare; covert, psychological, cyber, social, or otherwise. The sentence implies that all of the CIA's intelligence gathering is performed by means of warfare, which is false.
I suggest replacing it with the following two sentences: "It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers. Intelligence gathering is performed by non-military commissioned civilian Intelligence Agents; many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.182.14 ( talk) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
On CIA headquarters in history:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: CIA chief David Petraeus was a former military commander of the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. He has combat experience. Minister of Defence Leon Panetta is a former CIA chief. He has intelligence experience. Together they are a wining combination of defense and U.S. national security. 93.137.38.80 ( talk) 00:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)