Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Central Intelligence Agency. 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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

It passed GA

CIA is now a GA, I passed it this morning, lets hope next I will be supporting it for FA status. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Dep. Garcia. I didn't expect it passed so fast. I'm also looking for your support if I propose it to FAC. A W 09:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You got my support just give me a link to the page on my talk page where I can give this article my support! Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just found some vandalism on the top of the page. It said "Salina's first period licks balls". I deleted it because I wasnt sure how to report vandalism. What should I do in a situation like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Mandos (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

warn the person using {{Warning1|Central Intellegence Agency}}. If it continues, they will be banned. Please sign your posts using ~~~~. 68.92.157.24 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed info

The following was removed today:

On April 30 2007 a tape recording of E. Howard Hunt which was recorded on his death bed was played on Coast to Coast radio, in the recording E Howard Hunt claims that he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill President John F Kennedy.

68.92.157.24 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph has huge criticism and bias. It is vandalism that needs to be removed. 69.255.52.186 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Nuclearmound

Indonesia

I have commented out the section on Indonesia until we can find sources that are more reliable than "workers.org" and "thirdworldtraveller.org" to support the material therein. I will try to find sources for this and would appreciate any help. Incidentally, is the Kadane piece (which the article does not cite in direct support of the CIA's involvement in Sukarno's overthrow) from Time? The footnote implies, but does not explicitly say that it is. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you evaluate the reliability of the sources? You think they are not reliable doesn't mean that you remove the whole section. If the footnotes not say explicitly, just change the words. A W 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The sources do not meet the standards of WP:RS. I went to the library this weekend and did some research. I could not verify the claims made in the section in any reliable sources. Indeed, they seemed fairly dubious that the CIA was involved in Sukarno's removal. Typical was Steven Drakeley's The History of Indonesia, which blamed the killing on Suharto and his close advisors. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The two sources cited are not neutral: they are pushing a specific agenda. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

CIA is believed to have executed many undercover missions that are not declassified but widely raise suspicion (Malcom X's death, for example). Not one person thinks that CIA had a hand in Sukarno's overthrown and they gave reasons for their theory. Our work here is not to tell the truth but to cite what people think. I'll restore the text until we can reach to consensus. A W 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC) I'm busy now and will come back tomorrow.

Wikipedia is not here to report "what people think," but verifiable information contained in reliable sources. None of the neutral histories I have done research in support the view that the CIA overthrew Sukarno. The only sources cited that it did are not reliable ones. If you want the section included, simply find corroboration in actual, reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, we simply cannot put controversial information in the encyclopedia that has not been verified by reliable sources, so I have taken the section out. I have already put considerable time into looking at this in reliable sources and was unable to verify the claims. However, you are free to look at sources that are actually reliable (a book by a professor of Indonesian history would be a good example of this) and build a section. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts on two sources discussed above: I see I didn't explain this one in sufficient detail: One (workers.org) is the publication of a small fringe political party pushing an agenda. The other is a reprint of an article in the Covert Action Quarterly, a journal dedicated to promoting conspiracy theories. That's why neither of them is reliable. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find any reasons to deem that workers.org and thirdworldtraveler are not realiable. I don't know based on what did you conclude that workers.org is "pushing an agenda". It seems you are getting trouble with conflict of interest. Moreover, I have to repeat that this is a widely-believed theory that is held by a significant group of people. The article on thirdworldtraveler was written by Ralph McGehee, former CIA officer also the first one gave allegation about CIA involvement in Sukarno's overthrow. Joseph Burkholder Smith also supported this in his book Portrait of a Cold Warrior. Also, Covert Action Quarterly often promotes theories doesn't mean that it is considered as an unreliable source. Theory is a part of history. According to you, maybe all the theories should be removed from Wikipedia. A W 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First, your allegation of conflict of interest on my part is completely baseless and comes out of left field. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Workers.org is pushing an agenda because it is the website of a (fringe) political party: the Workers World Party. That's what political parties do: they push agendas.
Covert Action Quarterly, the source of the McGehee story, promotes on its website conspiracy theories (such as those involving 9/11) that have been widely discredited. That makes it an unreliable source.
The McGehee article, incidentally, makes no claims that the CIA "backed" the coup.
If, as you claim, this theory is widely accepted, it should be trivially easy to multiple reliable sources from mainstream sources discussing it. If the Smith book, in fact, makes the same claims as the article and is a reliable source it should be cited instead of the publications cited in the article.
I'm certainly not saying all theories should be removed from Wikipedia, simply that speculation from fringe publications should not be represented as fact here.

I had no opinion about this one way or another when I first came across this, but found this article as I was cleaning up some spam links. I am commenting out the text for now, so we can find some reliable sources for what happened in Indonesia. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The danger with your way of thinking is equating "what is fringe" with "what has a pov". Certainly mainstream publications/organizations have a POV - absolutely. And the CIA especially! Also you equate "reliable" with what most people (americans i suspect) agree. Do you not believe that most people could be deceived? Most people at one time or another thought that the earth was flat. But if most people were deceived than there would be no way for to approach the truth as the truth would always appear as "fringe". So if wikipedia is at all concerned with "what is the case" rather than simply being a poll of what most people believe to be true then it can't simply reproduce what is congenial to "common sense" and pass this off as having no POV. The solution here would be to include as many povs as possible no matter how much they are in confict with the so-called "reliable" or standard POV sources. This way the article would actually become objective - at least in the sense of re-presenting opinions as to what is the case. Canuckistani 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Canuckistani 00:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckistani (talk • contribs) 74.100.34.158 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What does "commenting out the text mean" in non-Wikispeak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.123.49 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of CIA

IT takes over half the article. Since there are so many small bits here divided into separate events I suggest we move it into its own article to properly cover each one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.65.166 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

-I find the criticisms to be out of place all together. The CIA is here to protect wikipedia and we should be courteous enough to not criticize them. Especially on a medium the terrorists have access to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.90.158 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[interjected] Is this guy for real, "courteous enough to not criticize", you sound like Robert Mugabe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.4.165.173 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. No subject should be spared criticism on grounds of its contribution to Wikipedia. Neither should any positive aspects.--85.180.169.128 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article should be written in a neutral tone of voice. Stating the facts. If criticisms are mentioned, both the pro's and cons should be. 84.87.70.130 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The inclusion of a comment by John Stockwell is pure opinion, seems very out of place in an encylcopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrWaters (talk • contribs) 07:51, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. It is relevant that a CIA operative criticizes the agency, whether his/her clame is true, or not. It should stay. --85.180.129.102 13:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Like all but a relative few CIA employees (I'm not including myself in that group by virtue of awkward sentence construction), I can't read Arabic. What did the poster who recently blanked this entire Talk page with the comment linked to in the footnote at the end of this sentence have to say to the rest of the world? [1] I presume it might have been critical of CIA, which is why I am posting in this section of the restored Talk page. Office of independent counsel 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[interjected] Note: This editor is not User:No barometer of intelligence who continues to edit this page. Trav (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment was "Death each unbeliever, death, death - El Jahmi" Typical vandalism I think to this type of article. Though, I don't know who El-Jahmi is in this case. Not sure. --Aude (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The person who posted that was from Kuwait. --Aude (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This page "about" the CIA tells me very little of the CIA. How about a separate page of CIA controversy, since that is what this one mostly is now? We could probably make a controversy page for the controversy page after that, too. That would be a great place for people to talk about how bad the CIA is, and the cameras that are placed in South American cereal boxes to enforce child labor for Starbucks in order to get oil from Iraq to compete with China and support Israel before they unfreeze Disney and use a hair from Hitlers mustache comb to obtain the DNA to replicate him so Bush can have an actual friend. 66.91.214.29 04:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA Operation

Already mentioned here on Wikipedia: OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD. Why NOT here in THIS article ? 205.240.144.168 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the bird is sick of being mocked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.226.5 (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's in a branch of the article now, see CIA Activities by Region: Americas#Operation Mockingbird. Erxnmedia (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mission of the CIA and NPOV?

I read the changes that Lars T. (talk · contribs) made, including inserting this:

The CIA is very loyal to its function; this is reflected in the fact that the agency will resort to dark methods, in order to obtain information, such as colossal violations of human rights through torture and the maintenace of illegal secret prisons. Its secondary function is propaganda or public relations, overt and covert information dissemination, both true and false, and influencing others to decide in favor of the U.S. government.

I don't see anything on the cited ref that would give the impression that the CIA's secondary function is what Lars T. says that it is. Additionally, I'd think that the use of the words "colossal" and "illegal" here would definitely NOT be NPOV, given that the issues referred to there are quite controversial. I'd suggest reverting back to a version of the article prior to the insertion of this paragraph. --Folic Acid 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but I didn't "insert" that, I reverted the deletion (that didn't give any reason). The part "Its secondary function... " has been in this article undisputed for quite some time now. If you want to delete the first sentence, which is only a few days old, that's your business. Lars T. 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Lars - I just saw that you'd re-added it. I apologize for the mistake. --Folic Acid 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for deleting the section without discussion before. However, I still have a problem with the second sentence. "Its secondary function is propaganda or public relations..." is presented as a fact, wheras the rest of the article speaks of the secondary function of propaganda as speculation. Also, it is not made clear if the propaganda is domestic or otherwise. Am I wrong? Either way, I thnk that sentence is very confusing.Phantombantam 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think the lead section should be rewritten. But it's a difficult task. A W 03:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So can you suggest other words which better maintain NPOV but still reflect exactly the properties of CIA functions? Almost everything is controversial, thus it's hard to write it in a more neutral tone. A W 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A very simple look at the reference for the second sentence shows it is incorrect. Therefore, I think stating part of the CIA's mission is propaganda is misleading and should be removed. Consensus? Rcrossvs 07:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to already be an apparent consensus here in this discussion that the current article introduction was problematical, so I attempted a very cursory rewrite of the first paragraph only to see if that would address some of the most important objections to NPOV violations. If anybody else can improve on it further or make additional suggestions on how it can be made better, more power to them. Office of independent counsel 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that the debate about whether or not the CIA maintains illegal prisons and tortures people is not a matter of point of view. It either happens or it doesn't happen. And it is not so difficult to determine whether or not it happens - just ask the people who have been tortured. It could be that they are lying - but again what is at stake is not their POV but the facts. One would have to check their story for internal constistency, for corroborating evidence etc... And obviously if the CIA were operating illegal jails and torturing people they would try to cover up these facts - so one would have to take into account the possibility of disinformation (lies). Recently in Canada we fired the head of CSIS (our counterpart to the CIA) because the CIA and CSIS had one of our citizens kidnapped and tortured by proxy. This is a matter of government record and is not POV. And the whole affair was rife with lying. This I will allow is not precisely the same as if the CIA tortured people themselves or maintaining jails themselves. But I am just beginning to read up on this situation - my suspicion however is that there will be plenty of evidence to back up the assertion that the CIA tortures and maintains or has maintained illegal jails. To reiterate: in cases like these we must determined to find out what the truth is, otherwise we will end up in the following absurd situation: A Reporter "It is Mr. Johnson's POV that he saw a dead body on the street - however this report is contradicted by Ms. Smith who's POV is that she did not see a dead body." We cannot let this situation stand we must determine to the best of our abilities which or whether both are lying. To leave this situation at the level of POV violates human dignity.Canuckistani 14:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canuckistani (talk • contribs).

"The problem here is that the debate about whether or not the CIA maintains illegal prisons and tortures people is not a matter of point of view," is what you have written above. It is a point of view because the definitions of "illegal," "torture," and "prisons" seem to be bending at the moment (or at least in some people's opinions). I saw the director of the agency on an interview on PBS. The guy looked and sounded like a complete moron. I was certainly wrong once I paid more attention. The tactics being employed by the country's current administration include shaping definitions to suit their pursuits. If a woman was pregnant and you guessed she was going to give birth to a boy, and someone else said a girl neither of you are giving an opinion. I understand your above commentary, and will tell you that it is logically sound and well stated. But. The controversy still stands. "Does the US operate illegal prisons for torture?" Maybe. In order to make this a usable question though the terminology needs to be clearly defined. 66.91.214.29 05:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cia.gov links

Many of the cia.gov links seem to be broken I replaced a couple, but coudn't find the updated URLs. There are a few more dead references. I'd replace them all with {{Fact}}s, but can't find them since "Find" in most broswers will not search text fields.Phantombantam 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New CIA declassified documents

http://www.foia.cia.gov/ and click "family jewels" in the second paragraph

This is a great source for a lot of fidel castro-type things. I'm not the best writer/editor so maybe somebody better then I can make use of this source. These are the recently declassifed documents. Very dirty stuff in there. Virek 11:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fletcher Prouty

Leroy Fletcher Prouty is listed as a CIA whistle blower. Prouty worked for military intelligence and was never on the payroll of the CIA. John Geraghty —Preceding unsigned comment added by John geraghty (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Prouty is also a source of extremely low credibility (witness, e.g., his defense of L. Ron Hubbard's bogus autobiographical claims about intelligence work). Lippard 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong meaning and invalid implication

The original text:

"Many of the post-Watergate restrictions upon the Central Intelligence Agency were lifted after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the The Pentagon. Some critics charge this violates the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the federal budget be openly published. However, 52 years earlier, in 1949, Congress and President Harry Truman had approved arrangements that CIA and national intelligence funding could be hidden in the U.S federal budget. "

The order of the sentences gives the meaning that because restrictions were lifted, a violation of the Constitutional requirement may have occurred. In fact, the meaning should be that because the arrangements were made, a violation of the Constitutional requirement may have occurred. Also, the implication of the original text is that Congress and the President can overrule the Constitution. (The implication: SINCE Congress and President approved arrangements, then the critics' charge is invalid) Obviously, this is not correct.

The revised version then:

"Many of the post-Watergate restrictions upon the Central Intelligence Agency were lifted after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the The Pentagon. 52 years earlier, in 1949, Congress and President Harry Truman had approved arrangements that CIA and national intelligence funding could be hidden in the U.S federal budget. Some critics charge this violates the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the federal budget be openly published."

72.188.233.83 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC) KeepTheContext

CIA as source to Congressional Committees in their work

I would like permission to add a section showing how the CIA contributes to the development of knowledge resulting in crucial Committee decisions. The example I would like to use is the The CIA input into the Committee on Foreign Relations resulting in the decision of Ranking Minority head Sen. Jesse Helms' letter to Boris Yeltsin which brought about the turnover by the Russian Federation of KAL 007's long hidden Black Box. Bert Schlossberg 89.138.147.180 10:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to ask for permission to add something like that to the article. Be bold! Blackeagle 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

While the CIA provides information to these committees, it does not, nor has it ever, function as an investigative arm for any committee of Congress. --Folic Acid 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Labelled as terrorists by Iran

Is this really relevant? So the American and Iranian legislatures got in a name calling match; is this notable? I think it is neither; that it was stated by a notable entity (the Iranian parliament) does not by definition make it notable. Parsecboy 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I to take it that no one would object if I removed this section, on grounds of lack of notability or relevance? It's been over a week, and no one has replied here. I'll give it another day or two, and then remove the section in question. Parsecboy 19:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to its removal. It's the sort of standard, rhetorical denunciation that gets issued at regular intervals by all sorts of governments. No barometer of intelligence 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Section removed by anon

A larger section was removed by the anon today:[2]

The CIA acts as the primary American provider of central intelligence estimates. It is believed to make use of the product derived from surveillance satellites of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the signal interception capabilities of the National Security Agency (NSA), including the ECHELON system, the surveillance aircraft of the various branches of the U.S. armed forces and the analysts of the State Department and Department of Energy. At one point, the CIA even operated its own fleet of U-2 and A-12 OXCART surveillance aircraft. The agency has also operated alongside regular military forces, and also employs a group of clandestine officers with paramilitary skills in its Special Activities Division. Johnny Michael "Mike" Spann, a CIA officer killed in November 2001 during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, was one such individual. The CIA also has strong links with other foreign intelligence agencies such as the UK's Secret Intelligence Service, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Israel's Mossad, and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. Further, it is currently believed to be financing several Counterterrorist Intelligence Centers. One of these, known under the codename of Alliance Base, was allegedly set up in Paris and jointly run in cooperation with France's DGSE. Although classified, the CIA may also be actively cooperating with India's Research and Analysis Wing and possibly Russia's SVR. The CIA worked extensively with Pakistan's ISI throughout the Afghan-Soviet War, and works with this agency closely for the War on Terror.

If it remains removed, maybe people can take sections from this and add it to the article later. Travb (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"UFOs and Robertson Panel" article subsection

What do other editors think about the possiblity of eliminating all but a short one-paragraph mention of the current content of this section of the CIA article, and letting interested parties click on the Wikilink to the Robertson Panel main article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel

That is what is done with the ""Farewell Dossier" section directly below it, and it seems like a good solution from keeping the main article from becoming unwieldy. The Robertson Panel is pretty ancient history anyway, and fairly non-notable in terms of real historical importance, IMHO. Its lengthy inclusion in the main article also detracts from overall credibility, as prominent mention of UFOs brings in elements of fringe belief in all sorts of oddball conspiracy theories. Might as well include a section on Skull and Bones or "remote viewing" experiments if UFOs are given such lengthy treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No barometer of intelligence (talk • contribs) 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was no immediate feedback on this suggestion, so I took the Wikipedia maxim to "be bold" to heart and made an attempt to implement this idea myself. I am not at all offended if someone reverts the edit(s) I made to this article and the Robertson Panel article; I'd just appreciate it if they would explain their reasoning for doing so here on this discussion page. Note that I did not remove any material from Wikipedia in the process of making these dual edits, and worked hard to preserve accurate citations of the Brenda Denzler book as I moved text from this article to the Robertson Panel article. No barometer of intelligence 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who made this section semi-respectable to avoid an edit war. I found all of the citations for this section. I am fine with moving this section. Hopefully it will be watched as carefully over at Robertson_Panel as it has been here. I think it is a grand idea, and I have considered it myself too. Travb (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA and the media

Since Operation Mockingbird is not the right context in which to talk about this, what would be a good article name for describing CIA and media/propaganda issues, without running into original research problems? Operation Mockingbird is simply not the place to do it, as that would be ahistorical (and I'm getting a lil bit tired dealing with the Operation Mockingbird conspiracy). CIA and the media might be a good name, but it is also the title of a Bernstein article dealing with this same issue [3], maybe not the way to go. Intangible2.0 02:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Operation Mockingbird is not the right context in which to talk about this, what would be a good article name for describing CIA and media/propaganda issues, without running into original research problems? Operation Mockingbird is simply not the place to do it, as that would be ahistorical (and I'm getting a lil bit tired dealing with the Operation Mockingbird conspiracy). CIA and the media might be a good name, but it is also the title of a Bernstein article dealing with this same issue [4], maybe not the way to go. CIA and propaganda is too strong a name; if it is propaganda, readers will find out by themselves reading the article. Intangible2.0 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The full scope of the Mockingbird Op is not known with certainty-as with most ops in the CIA, but there is no denying that there was an op known as Mockingbird-it is in black and white in the Family Jewels file and if you need- we can find more sources on this issue. Do you honestly believe that the CIA had a relationship with newspaper outlets and television - documented by numerous journalists and investigated by the Senate, yet they never had a name for the Op? Do you honestly believe that all CIA agents know the name of the Op they are working under? Do you honestly believe that the CIA is open and upfront with Senate investigations? I am sorry, but that is completely naive of the level of secrecy in the CIA. You may be tired of this debate, but articles that were easy to find and in reputable publications, you never once attempted to locate. One would hope that one would attempt to find reliable sources before they dismiss controversial issues and ask for removal of pages on Wiki. As far as CIA and the media, that would not portray the intent of their working relationship. We could say that about any subject-for example: " Intangible and Wikipedia," but that doesn't define the objective of the "relationship"- whereas "Intangible and Wikipedia Propaganda" would. If you want to rewrite Project Mockingbird according to what you feel is documented and propose that to the folks here-then perhaps we can all have a debate that is productive in representing history to the best of all of our abilities. The Op did exist, so I do not see how we can all agree to deleting it in its entirety- including linking it to pages associated with the Op. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.164.74 (talk • contribs) 14:48-15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits By Reuters Published: August 17, 2007, 6:08 AM PD hmmm...some things never change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.164.74 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. The only source that somewhat attests to notability of Operation Mockingbird is the Hunt book. Hunt does not provide references. Intangible2.0 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee held hearings about this topic in 1978, called "CIA and the media." So I think an article CIA and the media would be fitting after all. Intangible2.0 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine-add a whole new page/category. I misunderstood your direction and thought you were talking about changing this page. I have a great deal of non-conspiracy docs that are current or near current (within the last 10 years) on the CIA and the Media. This info is far too current to associate it with OP Mockingbird anyway. I will take care of adding these links when I have more time away from work. Sorry- I just don't have your free time for Wiki. As for assuming you are doing all of this in good faith, I questioned that because you appear to have nominated the page for deletion before you sought out citations of what you would consider "reliable sources" that you already knew about(ie Carl Bernstein article on Bernstein's website) And then you removed the link to the article on Hunt's book with the info on Mockingbird, which incidentally, you appear to have already known that he talked about that op in his book when you requested deletion.

Why not add it yourself before going for deletions or try improving the page overall?

Hunt did reference the Church Committee in his book; perhaps you could have added a link to those docs instead of deleting all the links. We should all try to improve this site especially with the latest problems on Wiki. I would hope that you would find a bit more ambition in that direction instead of going straight to deleting information. If you know more than we all do- go ahead, show us. thx kc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.167.222 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I only checked out the Hunt book after someone mentioned it (you?) at the Operation Mockingbird article. Intangible2.0 00:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Section renamed as "Detention, interrogation and rendition practices"

In the edit summary for this section renaming, I asked the question: "Should this section be summarized and broken out into a separate article?" and I repeat it here seeking input. I believe that all of the recent edits I have made to this section pass the WP:NOTE test, but I also acknowledge that Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and that this section is becoming long and is likely to grow with future news developments. Also, it falls entirely under the "Modern Controversies" main heading, so it might overly weight the main CIA article in that direction. What do other editors think? Something similar was done to break out the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy from the main National Security Agency article. I would be glad to write a summary of the current content of this section and then create a new Wiki-linked article including its entire contents if there is consensus for doing so. Alternately, if someone just wants to revert my renaming of the section heading and vote to leave things intact, that's fine with me, too. No barometer of intelligence 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the section would do well to be split off into a sub-article. This article is already dreadfully long (over 118kb) and could use a little pruning and creation of sub-articles for some sections. Parsecboy 23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree about moving this into a sub-article. What happens when articles are split into sub-articles is those sub-articles are often ignored. I know the page is long, but I think the length is justified in the number of editors who continue to update, correct, and yes, expand this article.

I supported User:No barometer of intelligence moving all of my sourced material I found on the Robertson Panel, but that was because the Robertson Panel is not very important historically. Detention, interrogation and rendition practices have severe and long term effects and is a current, contemporary issue of major importance. Travb (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My lord that section is long. Maybe it should be split up, at the least it should be cut into subsections. Travb (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Sdsds has pointed us in the direction of a solution with his/her addition of the Black site wikilink. This is a well-maintained, comprehensive article on this subject. It doesn't include some of the recent edits I've made here in this article, so if it's OK with other editors, I'll work at moving some of the non-duplicated newer content on this page into that article, write a summary for the main CIA article, and maybe change the:

to a

.... under the current section heading. Does that sound acceptable to others? No barometer of intelligence 23:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no reaction to my suggestion above made 18 days ago, so I just kind of let it drop. I decided that I just wouldn't add anything more to this already lengthy section, but then General Hayden made some public comments about interrogation methods that only seemed fair to include a brief mention of. I am a little wary of trying to summarize this section and move some of its existing content to the Black Site article like I proposed. Someone went to all the trouble of adding nine citations to the statement, "Waterboarding is widely regarded as a form of torture," although footnotes 87 through 90 seem more like declarative statements rather than conventional citations of sources. I don't want to offend those editors by moving all of that work to another article, but this one is getting unwieldy, IMHO. Any ideas from anybody else? No barometer of intelligence 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long and just keeps growing

I raised this issue elsewhere on this page relative to the section of the article on detention, interrogation and rendition practices, but it seems to me that we should have a more global discussion of the article relative to the guidlines in WP:LENGTH. Does anybody else agree and want to take the lead on making specific suggestions on how to move some of the current content to other articles, either newly-created or of the previously-existing variety? No barometer of intelligence 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate page on Covert U.S. regime change actions which is duplicative of the section on Historical Operations and Controversies. Also if you properly expand the section on Developing World covert ops as I started to do (had to add Angola 3 times due to vandalism), it becomes clear that what is really needed is a stand-alone section which is simply "History of Covert Operations by Region and Country and Date". Note that the lead-in to "Historical Operations and Controversies" and the Developing World lead-in carry a certain amount of bias. This bias can be eliminated or at least made to stand out by having a separate section on Covert Ops History that simply lists, on a region, country and chronological time basis, the exact operations which have been made public, and sources documenting those operations. Also this will make it far easier for a reader to analyze the military and political impact of the CIA on a particular country or region. If no one disagrees, I will implement this proposal, borrowing from other pages like the Covert U.S. regime change actions, but not deleting them. Also, to shorten the main CIA article, I would move the information under "Historical: Developing world" to a separate page which I would title "History of CIA Covert Operations by Region and Country and Date", for lack of a sexier title. Erxnmedia 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Robertson Panel was moved to another page and recent activities during the Iraq war was also moved, both which I supported.

That said, I stongly disagree in moving these remaining sections. Both sections happen to be what is the old criticism sections of the CIA. By having these sections here, people can add their own referenced views making the article more balanced. The CIA has a rich and controversial history, so of course an article on such an organization will be long.

The CIA article: 120 kilobytes

Other important articles which are just as big or bigger:

The most important wars for the US in the 20th century:

World War II 150 kilobytes

World War I 122 kilobytes

Vietnam War 122 kilobytes

Iraq War 147 kilobytes

Korean War 102 kilobytes

Gulf war 104 kilobytes

Travb (talk) 16:59-17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the opinions of both Erxnmedia and Travb, but upon reflection, I suspect the latter may have a good point that I initially missed. I just looked at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LENGTH#No_need_for_haste

... and it says in part, "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." Maybe the comparison to the war articles that Travb cited is a good one. At any rate, I won't try to move any of the existing content to other articles unless there is a broad consensus to do so here on this talk page. No barometer of intelligence 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, you are a rarity among wikipedians barometer (thats a real compliment too). Travb (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of GodspeedMach3's response in this thread because it was a copy of a remark he made in a seperate thread that had no bearing on the above conversation. I'm not really sure why it was copied into this section, but whatever, if Godspeed wants it put back, he's welcome to revert the edit.

Also, just to add me two cents in on this topic: I agree with Travb in that an article should not be shortened simply for the sake of keeping it from getting "too long." However, I don't think it's fair to compare this article to those of the wars above. Wars are, in a sense, a story in history, with a beggining, middle, and end. The CIA, however, is an organization, which has a definition. Definitions are inherently more concise than stories. I understand that a main page of the CIA has to have a history section (which will tell a story, in a sense), but even still, this history section is not meant to be a comprehensive history of every action taken by the CIA, that should be its own page, instead the history section should provide some main highlights to provide the reader with a general understanding of what the CIA is and does. For a good example of this, I would recommend anyone to look at the main page of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which remains (relatively) clear, concise, and focused on providing the reader with a good understanding of what the FBI is and how it works.

In this light, I do believe that there is some information on this page that is not pertinent or appropriate for the organization's main page, and have proposed a fix. For more on this, please see below under Neutrality. (203.162.35.78 (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia edits

I would like to get the wikipedia communities opinion on this section:

Various media outlets have reported that people using CIA computers have edited Wikipedia.^[1] Allegedly, employees of the intelligence agency altered biographical information contained in Wikipedia entries on former presidents including Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

When asked by the BBC whether it could confirm whether the changes had been made by a person using a CIA computer, an agency spokesperson responded, "I cannot confirm that the traffic you cite came from agency computers. I'd like in any case to underscore a far larger and more significant point that no one should doubt or forget: The CIA has a vital mission in protecting the United States, and the focus of this agency is there, on that decisive work." ^[2] Nevertheless, Wikipedia Scanner seem to show that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While other changes that have been made are more innocuous, and include tweaks to the profile of former CIA chief Porter Goss and celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey. The Iraq war article has also been edited by the CIA ^[3].

As is the case with all Wikipedia edits identifiable by WikiScanner to specific organization's computer networks (those in which a web anonymizer service has not been employed in the process), individuals can make such edits on their own initiative. Content appearing on Wikipedia has also been cited as a source and referenced in some U.S. intelligence agency products.^[4]

I have no problem moving the section, but removing several portions seems a little far. Travb (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I left the portion pertaining to the CIA. If people want information about the Wikiscanner thay can go to that article. This is not so important that it deserves its own heading. --arkalochori ^|talk| 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though I contributed to it (largely to clean it up), this is one section of the article that I would not miss. Relative to the other modern CIA controversies that are cited, this one doesn't even qualify as a "tempest in a teapot," and dilutes the overall credibility of the article in the process, IMHO. The news reports don't indicate that CIA employees edited Wikipedia entries as part of an agency initiative or that they were disinformative in their editing. The only thing I thought was notable (though not that notable) about the news accounts is that CIA employees would use computers with IP addresses identifiable to the agency's network while making their edits. The CIA angle was only a minor part of a much broader story of controversial edits when WikiScanner first debuted. I suppose you might want to preserve a one-sentence mention of it with a citation of a news source, but I can't see that it merits much more than that. Just my two-cents' worth, obviously. No barometer of intelligence 02:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when compared to other events such as extraordinary rendition, drug trafficking, front companies, subverting governments, employees editing Wikipedia pales in comparison. The CIA wasn't even at the center of the larger story of the WikiScanner. It is not really that notable and makes it appear that editors are giving events relating to Wikipedia higher stature in articles. --arkalochori ^|talk| 05:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points, if you guys want to remove it, power too you. Travb (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The information supplied in the aforecited text is very pertinent and essential to an entry that is appearing, after all, on Wikipedia. For credibility's sake it is essential that the article contain a detailed summary of the events described above. Since intelligence services of various countries (not only the CIA) are very important stakeholders in the controlling and influencing (or manipulating) information, it is essential that Wikipedia recognizes, discusses and recognizes what has already occured, and most importantly, that the CIA and other intelligence organizations will probably actively monitor and attempt to shape Wikipedia to their liking.

Let's not be naive about this. In fact, I gather that various administrators and users are active members of different-intelligence organizations. Who would seriously think otherwise?

Since we're discussing that subject, does someone know if this is discussed in other discussion pages within Wikipedia?

All the best, GodspeedMach3 03:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets also not make it more than it is. Yes, people working from their computers at Langley have edited Wikipedia, with or without bias. I seriously doubt it's an official mission; more likely than not it's people who are also editing from their homes, of their own initiative. Also, if the CIA were trying to control or influence information here, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they'd be smart enough to not do it in such an obvious and traceable manner. If it's decided that it's notable, then it can be mentioned, but lets not make a conspiracy out of nothing. Parsecboy 03:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The CIA is not doing something that is inherently wrong; that's the stuff of "every day work for a self-respecting" intelligence agency. Well, Parsecboy, I'll defer to your experience and the productive discussion at hand. I do believe that there is a need to paint a more complete picture of what the CIA's responses to these allegatiosn have consisted in (in favor of having a balanced article that takes into account the CIA position on these matters). I agree that most "CIA-related edits" would probably tend to be covert and certainly not easily traceable. However, I sincerely believe we shold not be naive about this topic. Regardless of our respective opinion on the merits of any particular intelligence agency at hand, it is expected that all or most intelligence agencies would actively attempt to influence public opinion through the various degrees of control that they may exert over media outlets. Certainly, much of that work is probably of a "covert" or non-conspicuous nature. Regards, GodspeedMach3 04:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

CIA ever persecuted?

Has there ever been a case of anyone in the CIA ever being persecuted for any of these illegal crimes abroad? One thing that is missing in this article is the involvement of the CIA in Abu Grahib. Seems like the CIA has tacit immunity from any crime, is this correct or is there any case of a CIA officer being persecuted? Travb (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but I think you mean "prosecuted", not "persecuted". For example, one is prosecuted for a crime, while persecuted for one's political or religious beliefs, prosecution being a legal action, while persecution being social or physical. (203.162.35.78 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

I suspect the answer to your question is that since the CIA's activities are inherently secretive, it is often very difficult to prove a CIA staff member's even involvement, let alone willful or negligent wrong-doing in a particular situation. Though I do know that Henry Kissinger is wanted for war crimes in some countries, and the ex-CIA guys involved in the Watergate break-ins did all go to jail. (203.162.35.78 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Neutrality

Apart from some of the early sections of this article, I greatly question the neutrality of this article in its current state, particularly with regard to its sections on the CIA's clandestine actions. Given that this article is supposed to be encyclopedic (i.e., accurate) it seems rather odd to include a section on activities of an organization that are inherently unvarifiable. In particular, any perceived activity that comes as a result of the accusations of foreign government officials or journalists. Given that the CIA never addresses its media criticisms, and never provides evidence of its activities (whether damning or exonerating), the CIA is an easy target for random or even prepostrous accusations by just about anyone. Even foreign government officials can not be credible sources for these activities as it is often beneficial for them, from a domestic political perpsepctive, to convince their own people of the foreign enemy trying to destroy their government, whether based in fact or fiction, and the CIA is a perfect target for this given how well known it is around the world.

In addition, the wording of many sections needs some significant neutrality and varifiability cleaning. For example, "CIA guru" is not a position in any organization I've heard of; implying that the CIA ruined the culture of Guatemala is not a useful statement in an encyclopedia, and numerous uses of statements like "many authors have accused..." or other such poor citational practices greatly reduces the credibility of this article.

As such, I propose that all sections of this article referring to the actions or activities of the CIA be moved to a seperate article with "confirmed" CIA activities and "suspected" CIA activities. This main page should remain focused on that information which is more varifiable, such as the organizational structure and history. Any section in this article on "controversies" or "known activities" should focus on those activites that are declassified and/or publically investigated, such as the CIA's involvement in the Watergate Scandal, Iran/Contra, etc.

This type of article is very difficult for a piece of work like Wikipedia because it really tests the notion of a "credible source." Even respected journalists and academitions have been known to be quite wrong about the CIA and other secretive organizations. Another example of this, is the majority of academic works that have contemplated the CIA's actions have almost universally admitted the lack of hard evidence on almost anything that involves the CIA, and so there is really very little that can be said about the CIA with any kind of certainty. Unfortunately, the CIA's main page should, like other main pages, stick to that which is certain. (203.162.205.60 (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Agree. As such, I propose creating a new page called CIA operations that have two sections, one with operations confirmed by the US Government, and one with allegations. Relevant material here will be moved to this article. Thoughts? Ultramarine (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See below.

In addition, allegations is a weasel word which is historically used by apologists to lessen unfavorable facts. User:Ultramarine, you wouldn't happen to be the SPA User:203.162.205.60 and User:Morethan3words? It is easier and less disruptive just to ask straight out. T (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Movement of Operations and Activities Sections

As some of you may have noticed, and as per the above discussion on Neutrality, I have moved a significant portion of the article to a new article, entitled Suspected and Confirmed CIA Operations. The reason for this is described in the discussion above, which I agree with, and no one has objected to.

As such, I have simply cut and pasted the old information into the new article. The new article, in my opinion, should be organized such that one section will list those operations, such as the Bay of Pigs, that have been openly admited to or confirmed by the CIA, and another section for those that have been reported on by various journalists, authors, etc. but not expressly admited to by the CIA. I would greatly appreciate help from the wiki community on this as I am by no means an expert on the CIA. (Morethan3words (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

I think moving Suspected and Confirmed CIA Operations is not a good idea. This is a predictable way of removing dissent, which I predicted would happen.

What concerns me is that CIA employees, probably screwing around at work, have edited Wikipedia (See above).

Moving controversial information is a familiar tactic of apologists and wikiusers with Conflict of interests: Branch off the page, then bury it.

In the Ford case, someone branched off the Ford rollover controversy, then the link was removed entirely.
In the Firestone case, the page was branched off then the branched off page was deleted and moved to another page.

User:Morethan3words who moved this page is, thus far, a Single Purpose Account, he is also User:203.162.205.60 who wanted to move this page above.

For this reason, I reverted the move. T (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Travb,

I don't mind that you undid this move, but there were some content additions in the branched page which you lost. For example, I added an entry for Japan activity which was lost, and there were some other user edits to Nicaragua. Is there a way to recover these edits? I don't know how to find the content of a deleted page.

Also, I have been a big contributor to the by-country listing of covert ops activities. I do not consider this an act of "dissent" so much as an act of "consideration". I think it is helpful for us as citizens to be aware of the specific history of political interventions that we make in other countries. This is helpful so that we know what we as taxpayers are paying for. We can also see on a per-country basis where that leaves us in terms of our relations with that country, i.e. who as a nation have we supported, and does that leave us more or less insecure. Having the facts at hand does not constitute dissent! Once you have the facts in hand, you can assent or dissent according to your beliefs. You can do neither without having the facts available.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I make broad statements which sometimes are incorrect. I apologize if this is one of those cases. I didn't see any changes in the edit history--but tonight I will change go through the history and cut and paste those changes back. My deepest apologies. I am just glad I caught this now, not 2 months later. (I recently deleted my entire watch list for my own mental health and well being, but like the God father, they keep pulling me back in)

You and User:Erxnmedia edited on a misspelled page, Central Intellegence Agency‎[5][6][7][8][9] [10] which the User:Morethan3words created on 10:31, 6 December 2007[11] right before he started to move this page 10:47, 6 December 2007. I realized what User:Morethan3words had done and I created a redirect.[12]I am rather concerned why User:Morethan3words created this misspelled page, maybe he can explain and apologize to you and User:Erxnmedia. Trav (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trav, please don't jump to conclusions too quickly, just because I am a new user does not make this a single purpose account, and just because I made a suggestion before I made this account does not make my IP a sock puppet, and don't accuse Ultramarine of being the same user as my IP just because he happened to agree with me. I made the suggestion to move this information because "controversies of the CIA" is a pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work. I'm not saying it should not be included, I just think it should have its own forum. As many have already stated (see above and below), this article is getting too massive and unwieldy. The sections I have moved are a natural choice for movement to fix this because:

1. These sections take up the vast majority of the article; and

2. More importantly, these additions are, by and large, the least verifiable within the article.

If you want to keep something about some of the controversies and/or operations of the CIA in the main page, I'm okay with that, but I think it should be limited to a select number of the more well-known and, most importantly, admitted (by the CIA) operations such as the Bay of Pigs, Iran/Contra, or maybe even Air America (not sure whether the CIA ever admitted to that one). I agree that the article should recognize some of the criticisms/failures of the agency, I just don't think the main page is the appropriate forum for listing ALL known and suspected operations. What do you think? (Morethan3words (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

I discussed the pros and cons of moving this before. I won't repeat my reasons all here again.

User:Morethan3words: "controversies of the CIA" is a Pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work; More importantly, these additions are, by and large, the least verifiable within the article.

This is irrelevant to the page move. If your claim is correct, research on this topics can correct this. In fact, by moving the page to a secondary page, less people will see this page, therefore the "conjecture and guess-work" you perceive will be more likely to remain on Wikipedia, not less. This reason actually supports the page remaining as is.

If the verifiability of this criticism section is your main concern, and not the image of the CIA, then the more editors who see this page the better, right? Why not spend some time rewriting those criticism sections you personally disagree with. You can start with the Highly Illegal Activities section which I added to this page, which is from a Congressional committee investigation, probably the most distinguished verified source on the entire CIA, and yet, you include it in the category of "Pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work", why?

Is a Congressional committee investigation "conjecture and guess-work"?
In your blanket statement, you say that 92 references (Footnote 35 to 127) are a "Pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work". Wow. Have you checked all 92 references?
Have you attempted to rewrite a single section of this article?

Quite frankly as an editor of this article, who has taken hours and hours to make sure every word I add in this article is backed up by the most esteemed references available, I find your comments not only detached from reality, but highly insulting. Just like I find the other POV editors who demand page moves and have never added a single word to this article a real kick in the face. Please take a couple of months adding content to this article and learning wikipolicy before making such potentially disruptive changes. I am sorry but right now you are:

not an established editor,
you are a WP:SPA,
and your arguments are disingenuous and illogical.

The purported goal of wikipedia is to write an Encyclopedia. I getting really exhausted having to police my edits which exceed all Wikipedia rules from vandals, POV warriors, anons, and WP:SPAs with blatant WP:COI.

User:Morethan3words: These sections take up the vast majority of the article

There are several articles which have similar sizes, take for example the major wars of the US, as I listed above. The only reason that this page move is justified is its size.

Branching off the page into smaller pages as editors above have done I think is a great idea (Also). The took the largest sub-section of the controversies section, and made a new article.

The more personal aspects which I brought up above we can continue on your talk page. Trav (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA has made the most edits to Wikipedia?

Urban legend? This was added to wikipedia recently by a newbie:

According to Harper's Index, published in Harper's Magazine in December 2007, the CIA has made the most edits to Wikipedia.[13]

Unfortunately Harpers requires a subscription

Sounds dubious at best, especially since the previous edits of this wikipedian on this page. T (talk) 10:09-12:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like utter nonsense. It's also very vague. The most edits to what? A specific article? Were they legitimate? Vandalism? Part of a psy-ops campaign? Without access to the Harpers article, we can't include anything of this sort, unless someone finds a corroborating source (which I don't think anyone will, because this sounds like an urban myth). Parsecboy (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It does sound like nonsense. I will get a hold of Harper someday--the Bastards want $16 to see it--I dream of a day without copyright. Trav (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to stop by the library and have a look for free. Acroterion _(talk) 19:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a subscriber. This is probably what was referred to: "Minimum number of edits to Wikipedia since June 2004 that have been traced back to the CIA: 310." Hardly the "most edits" (I'm not even sure what that means). Source is listed as Virgil Griffith of California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. csloat (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

310? How ... underwhelming. Also, effectively OR. Acroterion _(talk) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat can you email me the PDF please, I would really like to talk to you about this file. Trav (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR; it's just wrong. 310 is not the "most" by any way you look at it. Travb - I'll email it when I get a chance to scan it, probably later today -- but you won't see much beyond what I've typed above. Harper's Index is a series of one-liners. Anyway I'll scan it up for you in a bit. csloat (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I warned the new editor that if I understood right, unless it was a mistake, this edit could be considered vandalism. I remember someone being booted for subtle vandalism such as this, and I think the vandalism page discusses subtle vandalism.20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected; Virgil Griffith is the creator of WikiScanner, which currently lists 297 edits from the CIA's IP range, actually. OTOH, I would expect the CIA to not rely on "anonymous" edits if they actually want to edit Wikipedia articles in secrecy. Lars T. (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> I warned the user about a lot of silly stuff he tried to put into the article, along with vanity page creation. I got a reasonably civil response (compared to some), but very much doubted that we'd see anything useful or particularly true, and my intuition was correct. Perhaps my patience was unwarranted, but I doubt we'll hear any more from this particular user. If we do, we'll deal with him accordingly: I have him watchlisted. Acroterion _(talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch User:Acroterion, I noticed you watched this editor from the beginning. Check your user page, I want to give you a barnstar.

Subtle vandalism scares me the most because it undermines the credibility of all of wikipedia, much more effectively than juvenille "Fuck" additions.Trav (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the recent tapes controversy?

I added it to the old separate "controversies" page, but then that disappeared when it merged back to this page . . . somehow. This page is now so huge no one can really read through it without planning on spending their entire evening, but a simple search of "tapes" on the page led only to a link, not even a text mention of this huge event in the history of the organization.

I find this interesting that this issue is literally number one on Google news for multiple days in a row, yet nonexistent (if not for myself posting it), on the primary worldwide 'neutral' reference to the CIA. Amazing how people are on top of my edits within 15 minutes whenever I add or remove anything from a 9/11 "conspiracy" page, yet the CIA page goes without even a mention of a massive PR disaster for the agency. bov (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I know often that sections are accidentally removed when someone reverts back. But in this case I did not remove this section in the merge. Look at this link, no changes: [14]

User:Bov you have never edited on this page before until today, 12 December 2007[15][16][17]You and User:Erxnmedia edited on a misspelled page, Central Intellegence Agency‎[18][19][20][21][22] [23] which the User:Morethan3words created on 10:31, 6 December 2007[24] right before he started to move this page 10:47, 6 December 2007. I realized what User:Morethan3words had done and I created a redirect.[25]I am rather concerned why User:Morethan3words created this misspelled page, maybe he can explain and apologize to you and User:Erxnmedia.

This is the edit right before Morethan3words moved the section:

00:38, 6 December 2007 Dirtybutclean (Talk | contribs) (132,693 bytes) (→Singapore - As stated in legacy of ashes: the secret history of the CIA) (undo)

That edit does not have the words: ...On December 6, 2007, the CIA admitted that it had destroyed...

Morethan3words then moved the section:

10:55, 6 December 2007 Morethan3words (Talk | contribs) (42,096 bytes) (→Relationship with other agencies) (undo)

10:50, 6 December 2007 Morethan3words (Talk | contribs) (41,658 bytes) (→Recent controversies) (undo)

10:47, 6 December 2007 Morethan3words (Talk | contribs) (84,087 bytes) (→Historical operations and controversies) (undo)

My last edit to the page was:

(cur) (last) 09:43, 11 December 2007 Travb (Talk | contribs) (132,693 bytes) (Revert massive move of Single Purpose Account) (undo)

As you can see from this edit, between the SPA's removal of the information to another page and my revert all of the 23 changes were vandals, which had already been removed by someone else, there were no changes to the page.

Trav (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite Trav's thinly veiled distrust of my username, I assure everyone that the misspeling was completely accidental, I created the page and made the move during my lunch break and didn't have time to check it over. In any case, I don't see why I should apologize for making an edit with good intentions, particularly since the information lost was lost after all of my edits. In any case, Bov and Erxnmedia, I apologize if anything I did directly resulted in the loss of your text. Trav, as you have mentioned on my user page, I would remind YOU to discuss the edit, not the editor, though this can be fleshed out more on my user page if you prefer. (Morethan3words (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Exactly. In this case I was discussing the edits of the page, not the editor. I was concerned that I was being blamed by User:bov and User:Erxnmedia for some edits which I was not responsible for. It took me a really, really long time to figure out and correct this misspelled redirect.Trav (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, I'm not sure exactly how the page I created got named that. I see in the history that it was named the misspelled CIA, but I clearly remember naming it "suspected and confirmed operations of the CIA", as further evidenced by my reference to it above when I explained the move, which if you'll notice the formatting, used the simple [[ ]] to reference the page by name. The reason I remember naming it this is because when I did the search I had to change it slightly to avoid conflicting with the category of similar name. Not really sure how an article could have its name changed, particularly without it showing up in the log...(Morethan3words (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Unreliable sources

I have removed the many refernces to "milnet.com", an unsourced personal website.Ultramarine (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:

<ref name="milnet">{{cite web
| title =CIA Covert Operations
| work =Milnet.com
| url =http://www.milnet.com/ciaops.htm
| accessdate=2007-11-06
}}</ref>

Trav (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes

To help alleviate some concerns about the size of this page, I moved the Detention, interrogation and rendition practices section to the Black sites page as discussed above. This was a huge, unpleasant task, which I quit half way and then reconsidered and finished.

I removed the really bad formating that made the table of contents look so huge. I suggest maybe making this section a table.

I put the Huge history section, the bulk of the article, under the shorter main history section.

I moved the organization section above the history section.

Nothing was deleted, except for maybe two to three sentences which were the same in the Black sites page as I merged them. Trav (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Items were deleted. I added a Japan section to the moved page which was deleted, as were 3-4 edits by others to Nicaragua which got lost when moved page was deleted by you. Also what you call "really bad formatting" -- that's a matter of taste. It tells a visual story of just how far-reaching CIA activities are, and that story is lost when you delete the table of contents which is effectively what you did. If you want to add back a table, that would be equivalent. Erxnmedia (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Erxnmedia, your edits and valuable contributions to this article are important to me. I truly cannot emphasize this enough.

Japan

Erxnmedia, before I reverted back to an earlier version, you edited Central Intellegence Agency, a misspelled version of Central Intelligence Agency which was created by User:Morethan3words, and which caused a lot of confusion. See: Revision history of Central Intellegence Agency for your Japan addition and your move.

Nicaragua

Please add that deleted information here or on Black sites or Central Intelligence Agency. or please provide the diffs of items which were removed, and I will happily add them back.

I knew the move would be thankless and unpleasant, especially on the heals of User:Morethan3words major edits and the confusion he caused by creating Central_Intellegence_Agency. It would only give those editors who don't want a criticism section more ammunition, and open me up to accusations of hypocrisy. It would probably alienate both you (Erxnmedia) and bov, who have actually contributed excellent information on this page, or the mispelled page which User:Morethan3words created. I didn't want to do it, but the only legitimate argument editors have of removing criticism of the CIA is the page size.

I will check back over my edits, and restore that information to the Black Sites page or this one. In the future, it would be helpful if you cut and pasted the text of this lost information into the article or here on the talk page. If you have any questions about how to look at the page difference or restore text, please ask me.

Also what you call "really bad formatting" -- that's a matter of taste.

I didn't delete any information, just reformatted it. Remember, wikipedians who like to delete the entire criticism section from this page biggest argument is that the page is too long. The Table of Context was huge, many of these subsections had no or one sentence. There are formatting guidelines which attempt to make the pages consistent.

I am considering moving this information to CIA sponsored regime change or alternatively, moving the CIA sponsored regime change back into this article. Please let me know what you think.

Apology and solution

I apologize about the terrible confusion over the misspelled page created by User:Morethan3words.

I will cut and paste your Japan edit from the misspelled Central Intellegence Agency to here (this is what started this concern). I will check the merged information and see if I removed any information.

Again, in the future, it would be helpful and save me time if you cut and pasted the text of this lost information into the article or here on the talk page.

Trav (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Travb, (1) Thanks for putting Japan back. I put Japan in the moved page because I thought the move was an approved reduction in article size. (2) The Nicaragua changes by other editors were in the moved page that got deleted by you. I don't know how to access deleted pages, so I can't recover those edits. There are just 3-4 short edits and you can see them if you can see the deleted page history. (3) I'm OK with taking the structure out, however note that my vision for the section was that, over the time, people besides myself would fill in the details for each country, so that each country would have a full history of CIA interventions, and each country would average about a page in length, and the net effect would be that you could look at a country and get a cogent but complete summary of our covert involvement in that country's affairs. Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes has 71 countries in the index. That means that we are looking at about 71 pages of summaries. I structured it "By Region By Country" because I would also like to see coherent, cogent regional summaries. The exact attribution of countries to regions in Wikipedia is not one-to-one, however, and spheres of influence overlap, so that is a litle more problematic. Do you agree that Wikipedia should have these detailed histories? If so, how would you like to organize them? By the way, none of this is "Original Research". It is simply link-chasing. A lot of information is already in Wikipedia, it's just not organized or cross-referenced very well. Wikipedia however is ideal for gathering and presenting this information, because the more detailed our summaries are, the more people step in to correct mistakes and add detail. Erxnmedia (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Item removed

The following was removed because it was not sourced:

Employees of the CIA commonly refer to their place of employment as simply, Langley. As in "Washington is on the sat phone, Langley wants an update".[26]

Trav (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Making this article clear and concise

First, I applaude Travb's resent restructuring of the article. Surprisingly, I think this actually addresses most of the issues I brought up regarding the unwieldiness (is that a word?) of the article. I think this re-organization greatly improves the article's readability and credibility. Furthermore, I applaud the addition of the tags calling for more citations and admitting the controversiality of those particular sections (e.g., the operations by region list, etc.), I think these go a long way to addressing some the issues I raised on nuetrality of the article.

Having said this, I still think that the main page for the CIA is not the right place for a comprehensive listing of CIA operations. A similar comparision would be for the FBI page to have a comprehensive list of FBI investigations, which would be an interesting project to undertake, but should not be placed on the main page of the FBI. In fact, I think the FBI's main page is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say concise. The page has its introduction, description of the Bureau's organization, and a brief history that highlights some of the Bureau's more well-known (or notorious) investigations, as well as a section on controversies and criticisms.

I would submit that we could use this as a good reference for this article. I think there should be a section on this article that highlights some of the more well-known operations of the CIA, but it should not attempt to list ALL known operations of the CIA. The reason for this is that, while there is nothing wrong with an article simply being long, as previously discussed, an article should strive to be concise, and I think the operations by region section fails in this regard. Known and suspected operations of the CIA is such a broad and rich topic, it should have its own article.

To preempt some of the POV arguments I may get in response to this, I beg the wiki community to believe me when I say that I have no problem with the actual information provided herein, and I don't think that moving any of this information will sentence it to the obscurity of unseen articles (and that is certainly not my goal). I just think the current article attempts to be too comprehensive. Instead of packing everything about the CIA into one article, there should be a family of articles that explore everything we may or may not know about it, and the main page should referrence and briefly discuss all of this. (Morethan3words (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Today: I have no problem with the actual information provided herein

Yesterday: "controversies of the CIA" is a Pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work.

This statement is a rehash of the "long" argument, which is the only legitimate reason to move this page, and which has been addressed above in depth.

Editors have actively been moving small sections to existing pages, which I welcome.

I actually suggest moving CIA sponsored regime change back into this article. It is actually a larger version of Central_Intelligence_Agency#Covert Operations and I believe it was created when the same type of editors wanted to remove an earlier version of Covert Operations. Recently wikipolicy has stated that their should not be criticism sections, I think this goes doubly for criticism pages. All of this information should be merged into one history section.Trav (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would ask anyone that is going to quote me to please do it in full, the actual quote from yesterday is "I made the suggestion to move this information because "controversies of the CIA" is a pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work. I'm not saying it should not be included, I just think it should have its own forum." In other words, I was speaking about the topic in general, not the contents therein. As Trav stated before, fact checking every entry in the operations section would be a herculean task, one that I am not currently capable of undertaking.

Furthermore, there is a reason people have issues with the length. I quote from the Article size guidelines "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed." Currently we are at over 13,000 words and the printer friendly version prints at 30 pages.

I understand that some articles are long, and that's okay, some examples that have been given are the Vietnam War and World War II. However, an article about an organization is inherently different than an article about an event such as a war. An event is harder to divide into clear sections that can be left for other articles. Even if you divide a war up by its battles, you still must discuss every major battle of the war with a discussions of its implications on the war as a whole, for a war like World War II, that's a huge number of battles. The CIA does not have this requirement. We can provide a summary of some of the most important/well-known operations, and create a new article for a comprehensive list that can be referenced. I don't see how that will harm the article. In response to my suggestion, rather than saying we don't need to make the change, I would like to see a reason why we should not make the change. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Your flip-flop from yesterday to today is troubling. Your explanation is a play on words. If you think a section is a Pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work then that section in your mind is a "problem", which needs to be addressed.

"I was speaking about the topic in general, not the contents therein"

This is a play on words. The "contents therein" make up the "general topic". They are one and the same. The "contents therein" are the "actual information" that you "have no problem with".

User:Morethan3words your first edits to this page was to purge all criticism of the CIA from this page, your reason then was that "controversies of the CIA" is a Pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work when I pointed out that you removed 92 references, including references to a congressional committee. You dropped the Pandora's box for conjecture and guess-work argument completly, stating: I have no problem with the actual information provided herein.

Length

Quoting User:No barometer of intelligence above:

WP:LENGTH#No_need_for_haste

As I mentioned above, editors have actively been removing text to other established articles. I removed an entire section yesterday. Another editor removed the UFO and Robertson panel information. Months ago we created CIA sponsored regime change.

For the love of God, start adding content to articles before purging whole sections of referenced text from articles.

I am tired of talking about this.

Notice how as this argument drags on, fewer people are commenting, that is typical also. We are no longer talking to anyone but ourselves.

I learned long ago that the best remedy to stop controversy on talk pages is to ignore it. I have been spending an inordinate amount of time explaining myself to you User:Morethan3words, an editor with less than 50 edits who has never contributed a word to this article, whose sole edits to the page is to purge all controversy and criticism from this page. Enough already, this is a waste of my time. I can be making this article more encyclopedic instead of arguing with you.

You are obviously a very intelligent person, I invite you to use that intelligence to add referenced content to this page.

Trav (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

^ Elsworth,Catherine. "Wikipedia Slueth's tool reveals entry fiddling." Telegraph. April 16, 2007.
^ Fildes, Jonathan. "Wikipedia shows CIA page edits." BBC. August 15, 2007.
^ "CIA, FBI Computers Used for Wikipedia Edits"
^ Steven Aftergood (2007-03-21). "The Wikipedia Factor in U.S. Intelligence". Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy. Retrieved 2007-10-30.

[Elsworth-1] Elsworth,Catherine. "Wikipedia Slueth's tool reveals entry fiddling." Telegraph. April 16, 2007.

[Fildes-2] Fildes, Jonathan. "Wikipedia shows CIA page edits." BBC. August 15, 2007.

[3] "CIA, FBI Computers Used for Wikipedia Edits"

[4] Steven Aftergood (2007-03-21). "The Wikipedia Factor in U.S. Intelligence". Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy. Retrieved 2007-10-30.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]