Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

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.

-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.

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.

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. AW 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)

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

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)

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. AW 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. AW 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. AW 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The McGehee article, incidentally, makes no claims that the CIA "backed" the coup.
5. 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.
6. 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! 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
something approaching the truth to reveal itself here.  The truth would always
appear as "fringe".   So if wikipedia is at all concerned with "what is the
case" 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 pov 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. 
Canuckistani 16:09, 19 August 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)

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. AW 03:26, 2 July 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. AW 03:19, 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)

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 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

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