Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Central Intelligence Agency was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
High traffic

On May 6 2007, Central Intelligence Agency was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Central Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Central Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Low-quality material in the Nixon section[edit]

There's a bunch of factually incorrect and self-evidently biased text in here, particularly in the Nixon section. Words like "hatchet-man" and "hack" don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Several incomplete names are used and some people are given the wrong titles. For example, there's a mention of "DCI Cushman" that should be changed to "Deputy Director Gen. Robert E. Cushman, Jr." per the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency article, but that's just one of many problems. "On June 17" should be "On June 17, 1972" since the previous context was the year 1971, "DI Helms" should be "DCI Richard M. Helms," the reference to "The new DCI" should explain that the following events took place in 1973, not 1972, and give the full name of DCI Gen. Vernon A. Walters, the sentence beginning "The CIA was the only part" needs a citation to support it and the part of it that states "on the orders of the CI, or, if he was out of the country, the DCI" needs to be replaced with text that actually makes sense because there was no such title as "CI" and if that's someone who works for the DCI, then presumably the DCI could provide that authorization whether or not this unidentified "CI" was in town. And on, and on.

This material is just awful, really, and it appears elsewhere on Wikipedia as well, so once it's fixed here, it should be fixed there. (Or vice-versa is fine, too, as long as it gets fixed.) 76.22.118.146 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017[edit]

change "training,which" to "training, which" in "Poland 1980–89" section Miteusz (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Miteusz (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done 97198 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017[edit]

"Three days later, Blitz, a Soviet-controlled weekly in India, reported that the US was plotting to overthrow Sukarno."

Central_Intelligence_Agency#Indonesia section describes Blitz as soviet-controlled weekly in India, please add citation needed template for this. The weekly had criticized for being pro-soviet, but never reported to be soviet controlled to my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.246.127.25 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Torture[edit]

I don't see Torture in the Subheadings anywhere - I see it is mentioned under "Human Rights Concerns" but this structure does not seem ideal. If there are no objections, I will do some minor re-organizing of this section - I will leave the links to the main topic pages, since the topic will be too lengthy to discuss all its details here. Seraphimsystem (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks and Vault 7[edit]

I am surprised to see no mention at all of the massive trove Vault 7 revelations and of the wikileaks disclosures here about the CIA's extensive suite of cyberinvestigation and monitoring tools. Plenty of RS coverage, even if wikileaks is not yet regarded as such, though I am unaware of any false documents being released by WL thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.135 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The photo is wrong (mirrored)[edit]

The photo "Aerial view of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, Langley, Virginia" is a mirror image of the original photo. You can confirm this by comparing the photo in the article with satellite imagery and maps (38°57′6.5″N 77°8′44″W / 38.951806°N 77.14556°W / 38.951806; -77.14556). I suspect that the Russian editors may be behind this hack. SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The photo currently in the article [1] appears to match the image originally uploaded to Commons [2]. It appears to be an accurate copy of the source photo credited [3], and appears to be mirrored from the satellite view [4] as it would be seen looking from the east. The uploading user is active on Commons [5] and has never been blocked on Commons [6]. An account with the same username has been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry [7]. Other images available at the same outside source [8] include images which do not appear to have been mirrored (e.g., [9]). That's as far as I have gone on this. It looks to me as if the image on Commons ought to be updated/corrected, the original uploading user contacted/notified via his talk page on Commons and, possibly, librarians at the outside source of the image asked about this [10]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)