Jump to content

Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.91.214.29 (talk) at 04:40, 28 October 2007 (→‎Criticism of CIA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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.

Is this guy for real, "courteous enough to not criticize", you sound like Robert Mugabe.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

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 [citation needed]s, but can't find them since "Find" in most broswers will not search text fields.Phantombantam 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

"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 Roberstson 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I thing 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

See also: Black site

to a

Main article: Black site

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

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[reply]


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. 89.138.147.180Bert Schlossberg89.138.147.180

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. CIA and propaganda is too strong a name; if it is propaganda, readers will find out by themselves reading the article. Intangible2.0 02:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 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.

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) 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency&oldid=167567630"