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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Cold War (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Espionage (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Central Intelligence Agency is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Espionage and Espionage-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
High traffic

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

Torture report[edit]

Is the 'torture report' (see news articles ad nauseum) the Panetta Review or does it exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? I can't believe an article hasn't been created yet. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've started a clumsily named article on the report. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Surely you could invoke COMMONNAME to name the article "CIA torture report?" The CIA is not a living person, after all.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've moved it. Waiting for official report name. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Improving coverage of CIA Activities[edit]

I'm pretty flabbergasted that this article has a "B" quality rating, signifying that, whoever reviewed it, believes that it has flawed, but fairly comprehensive coverage of the subject. I visited this article hoping for that, but the article's coverage of what the CIA has actually done is just paper thin. Not to mention, do encyclopedias really focus co much on organization structure over what an organization has actually accomplished? Which isn't to say that I expect this article to cover any single incident in the depth that an article dedicated to that incident would as articles on an entire organization needs to be concise, and because that would violate wiki article size policies. I did see the almost unmentioned articles on regional CIA activities. The one I glanced at was in even worse shape.

In my view, this article is a barely salvageable mess. Going from top down, the first obvious change would be to move the sections on the bureaucratic organization of the agency into a sub-article. It looks like further sub-articles might be on CIA Personnel, and another on it's budget. The history of CIA activities is a little thorny. Some readers will probably want a chronological breakdown. Some may want it by regions, and some may want it by country. As there already are a few regional articles, I guess as a stopgap, it would be best to have the chronographical presentation in the main cia article, and to try to improve the regional articles.

I suppose in the near future I'll start creating sub-articles, such as the ones on the bureaucratic organization, budget, and personnel, and, when they've gained a little traction, I'll start pruning this article. But I plan to start improving the history of the CIA's actions immediately.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Rather than wholesale criticism of the article, without any consensus, could I respectfully suggest that you improve your editing history and concentrate on producing a User page - so that the community may know a little more about you? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
An ad hominem attack? Stay classy pal. As for the article, the only reason I can see for someone arguing that it's coverage per article quality guidelines is comprehensive would be as a joke. You're welcome to try though. I'm holding a book that covers just 60 years of the history of the CIA, and it comes to 702 pages. The article's history covering '53 to '66 comes to 4 short paragraphs. I'm sorry if I believe that that could be improved upon.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispute about the regional pages?[edit]

There seem to be disputes about regional pages, such as: CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia

It seems like this should be discussed. Right now, for instance, that specific article redirects to this article. One suggestion is that the page could be a jump page linking to the various country specific articles, and, in cases where a country may not have a dedicated country specific article, maybe information could be added to the regional page. This page, and the country specific pages though do seem to link to the regional pages which now redirect to this page.TeeTylerToe (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Size[edit]

Tee Tyler Toe and anybody else who has been active on this page; I've been watching this page for a bit, and the single largest problem at the moment strikes me as being the sheer size of the article. it has 20,000 words, for goodness sake. I think we need to find a way to transfer material to subsidiary articles (because there's not much bad material in there). For instance, "Organization of the CIA" could certainly be a good subsidiary article, and perhaps "Covert actions by the CIA" (or something like that with a better title). Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If the purpose section was better, I'd say keep it, but since it needs work, I'd say it can go. Organizational structure, Training, Budget, Employees... basically everything other than history seems out of place. Maybe have one section on something like "current functions and structure" that summarizes it's current activities, structure, budget, employees, training, etc. Then move stuff like, listing each subsection of each section of each directorate into a different article. The 'abuses of cia authority' section should be moved somewhere and expanded to abuses from '47-current. Maybe that could be folded into controversies. There's some policy about controversy section, I forget what it is, but the article should follow whatever it is. I'd say there are parts of the history section that are longer than they could be, for instance there may be some overlap in the watergate coverage with the watergate article. So, some of the details about things less directly related to the CIA could be trimmed down with some kind of mention, followed by a link to the watergate article. Generally I think the thrust of the different sections in history should be maintained if there's any pruning there. Just the 'further reading' section is fairly large, and could almost have it's own article. The dozens of references to legacy of ashes in the references section make the page larger. There were a few different ways of making references, we could replace the one I chose with the one where the page number appears next to the footnote, that would save space in the references section, but I think it's sort of odd. The see also section seems pretty random. Article length is not a new problem for this page. At one point on wikipedia there was some kind of opt-in automated survey for pages iirc, maybe that could be used to tailor the article to the kind of information people are looking forTeeTylerToe (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that the article can be kept down to just the history, although obviously that is important. The history section is currently massive, as is the controversies, and both of them have a lot of extraneous info and poor writing. It wouldn't hurt to make a "criticism of the CIA" article, either. The organization and purpose sections might be really bad, and in need of pruning, but we can hardly nix those; the article does have to be comprehensive. Obviously, we need to keep WP:DUE in mind, and the criticism and history needs appropriate weight, but we can manage that with an article one third the size. I might make a cut/transfer sometime; not immediately, I'm rather busy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not what I was suggesting. "Maybe have one section on something like "current functions and structure" that summarizes it's current activities, structure, budget, employees, training, etc." the non history sections seem like they have a lot of dead weight. The organization of the CIA is an interesting topic, books could probably be written about it's current organization, and the history of it's organization, but I don't see that in the organization section of the current article. The CIA is an enormous topic. There could be a wiki article about the history of organizational reviews done about the CIA... I was looking for articles that had gone through review (featured, or good) to base this on, one article that could be a good template could be the Cold War article. But, as it is, I don't think the history section would be improved by breaking it down chronologically, by, for instance, decade, or rough periods as the cold war article does. Breaking it down from president to president could make sense, or from DCI to DCI, although there have been too many DCIs, but a lot of the things span different presidents. Books could be written about the CIA under any president. There could be articles, cia under carter... Anyway, yes, the non-history sections are anemic, and yes the history section could be improved. I haven't incorporated the CIA abuses section into the sections that I've added, for instance. But I think the first place to start are, for instance, the lists of sub sections of sections of directorates. As I said.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we're broadly on the same page, actually. I suggested breaking it off into a new article keeping due weight in mind; but if its shitty content, it can be cut. I'm thinking that a good length for the organization section would be about 500-1000 words. So we can cut it down to there for starters. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a good sense of scale for byte size, or number of characters, or number of words, but that actually sounds a little on the small side to me. That said, I'd be surprised if the current organization section would be that large after extraneous information was removed from it. It also looks like the CIA is amidst some pretty significant organizational changes right now, moving from fixed regional divisions to "centers" using the counter-terrorist center "centers" organization as a model. For one, apparently, it breaks down the walls between analysis and action, and for another, it seems like it's based on ad hoc being created until they dissolve. iirc a few weeks ago the article was around 150,000 bytes, which is about the size of some large featured articles, but people seem to see it as a little too large. Now it's around 205,000 bytes. I wouldn't be surprised if, with some trimming, it can be brought down to a size smaller than it was a few weeks ago. I think there's a lot of stuff that can be cut from the sections that aren't history, and, in the history section, there are some parts, mostly ones that are roughly 4 large paragraphs long or longer that could probably be cut, and my only issue shortening those longer sections in history is not to change the general thrust of the section while shortening it. And, when shortening sections, I think that it's important, for the most part, that, say something more on the anecdotal end is taken out of a section to make it shorter, ideally that anecdote could be moved to whatever the appropriate article would be. So, for instance, there's an anecdote in the clinton section about how the chinese embassy was hit, and the author of ashes said that that, and other instances, like the chemical plant bombing, made the clinton administration more careful about bombing, particularly in their hunt for bin laden. Well, if the anecdotes about the Chinese embassy, and the chemical factory are moved to the right article, say, an article about the CIA under clinton, or I guess to different articles, then I'd be fine cutting those from this article. But I'd be less happy if it was cut with it not being in other articles, particularly if, in the other articles, the connection wasn't made that negative results from prior bombings made clinton reluctant to bomb. Shortening it in this article is fine, but I'd like to see it in other articles.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to delete info either. Breaking it down by administration seems rather a lot. I'd much prefer to break it down by region, because sources are often focused on regional issues, and there are already regional CIA-activities articles, although they are bad, without exception. Excess info can simply be transferred there. Also, you may want to read WP:TLDR ;) Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
WRT size; one byte is a character, average 8 bytes to the word; so a thousand words is a little less than 10kb. WP:TOOBIG suggests splitting articles at 100,000b; this is twice that, so eminently split worthy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I've cleaned out a lot of stuff from "Organization," for starters. If anybody disagrees with specific removals, I'm happy to discuss it. Some stuff was unnecessary; other stuff just out of place. It can be readded to the appropriate place, the info itself is there in the history. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be at about 113kb of prose right now, I wouldn't call it a desperate emergency. The wiki policy on content removal is pretty strict, basically it seems to say that you have to move everything that's relevant to a different article. The article certainly could use some help, but I don't think size is the most important issue right now. I'd like to see a new article created covering reports and committees generally to try to fix or improve the CIA, as well as abuse investigations.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. It needs to be removed if its sourced and non-redundant; if its unsourced, or just repeating stuff, we can throw it out with no issues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is far too long to read comfortably (122kb prose), so it is a serious issue WP:SIZERULE. The History and Controversies sections are particularly long. Each of their subsections should probably be condensed to a single paragraph where possible, especially for subsections which have their own main article - with a hope to bring the article down to ~75kb (A huge subject like World War II manages to be 78kb). Also, the style of writing is often either somewhat florid, clumsy, or grammatically complex.
Alternatively, there seems to be plenty of information to create separate History and Controversies articles. (Hohum @) 10:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been mulling over this, wondering what the best possible shakeup would be. We could create a "History of the CIA" article; alternatively, we could use the existing "CIA activities in [insert region here]" articles. The prose is rather poor, and could do with a lot of tightening up. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
There should certainly be an article about the history of the cia. The section on the president's order to eliminate the leader of the Congo should be longer than 5 short sentences, for instance. The section on the CIA support for the resistance to the soviet occupation of afghanistan should be longer than 2 sentences. My point is that the history section, while parts are long and could probably be shortened, is already at the summary of summaries stage. So 6 sections on the organization, or the 2 sentences on the soviet invasion of afghanistan, or the 2 sentences on afghanistan vs what year the CIA created it's first training center, or a section based on the quote of Robert Baer about employee polygraphing. There's a dedicated article on extraordinary rendition, so maybe we could turn that section into a summary.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have boldly created a WP:SPINOUT article at History of the Central Intelligence Agency. North America1000 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what to do with the purpose section?[edit]

Right now, the first part of it is repeated in the history section, so the only part I would think might be relevant is the priorities list, but even that has probably changed by now. I think the whole section could be redundant.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the title of this section just for aesthetic reasons. I think the "purpose" part of the history be dropped; it's better for the weighting that way. "Purpose" is a valid section, after all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPINOUT[edit]

  YesY Merger complete Information from this article has been merged into History of the Central Intelligence Agency. North America1000 04:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

North America, I appreciate the spinoff, and as you might have seen I was supporting something similar above; but surely we need a summary of the history here? The vast majority of scholarly sources on the topic cover history/activities, after all. Not a hundred kilobytes worth, certainly, but a normal-sized section is very necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
For starters, I added some content in the history section to provide a basic overview. North America1000 04:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I will work on adding a much condensed history of its activities, probably just a handful of the most prominent actions. Not immediately, though, since I haven't the time right now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Why was this done without discussion in the size section of this talk page where this issue was being discussed. To sum up my position in a sentence, the problem is that the history section that was in this article that you moved to a new article was the summary of summaries. iirc the prose size was around 108kb which I don't think requires drastic action. There are other ways of addressing the issue as was being discussed. And look at the history section now. I don't remember what it was before this started a few months ago but how could it be worse?TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
TeeTylerToe, the discussion above seems to support a spinoff, and NorthAmerica's edit was warranted. What it requires is for a summary of the history to be written. 108kb of prose is still far too long. I would suggest reverting your edit, and writing such a summary instead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It already is a summary of summaries. As it is now it's a mess. What happened to the regional articles, are they now co-existing with northamerica's new history article? I don't think the meat cleaver approach is the right one for this job. We could create an article about the creation of the CIA, another about the history of the organization of the CIA. One about the CIA in Korea, another about the CIA and vietnam. That way we could trim the sections in this article on those topics and fill out the new articles. We could find a way to move around the part about the '53 Iran coup, distributing it to articles about that specific event. And simply putting the history section through a good editing process would probably cut it down by at least 8k. Per WP size policy hasty splits like this are explicitly discouraged. If somebody can boil the history of the CIA into a few paragraphs, then I guess we could follow it with a paragraph or two by president linking to subarticles. But the bar for summarizing the entire history of the CIA is very high, and it's doubly complicated because it would need to be supported with solid references. This article's summary of the CIA shouldn't just be some editor's synthesis.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There are some regional articles, but there is no reason they cannot coexist with this one, or we redirect the history here and just use the regional articles. Plenty of options exist there, and which one we use is basically irrelevant. What is important is that this is too long. A summary does not have to be synth. Different CIA actions are given different coverage in the sources. We cannot cover every single one here; so, we simply raise the bar for inclusion here, and put less prominent ones some-place else. North America, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Splitting the article seemed to be a good thing to do, as per WP:SIZERULE, and there was a rough consensus above at the Size section to do something, so I performed a bold spinout. Since the content in the history section was restored, the article is now back at 185,495 bytes, and the content still exists at the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article. I recommend whatever consensus hopefully arises here about dealing with the overly long length of this article. I also strongly recommend, at least for the time being, changing the History section in this article back to a summary, because of the duplicity of content that presently exists. However, since this was reverted, and in the sincere interest of avoiding edit warring, I'll go along with whatever overall consensus hopefully emerges here. North America1000 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Hohum as the only other editor to have weighed in. Thoughts? My personal take is that we can eliminate a lot of the less prominent activities of the CIA, and keep the ones that have received the most coverage, which is easily checked using scholarly search functions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said here and in a section on this talk page dedicated to the issue, two of the regional articles have been turned into re-directs that point to this page. The asia region page and the near east, N. Africa, s. & sw asia region pages. The prose size is roughly 108kb. If someone comes along with a good, comprehensive, concise summary of the history of the CIA, that's great. I would imagine that it would touch on the cold war, on how the CIA supported different overarching strategies, e.g. containment, etc, and then touch on the rise of terrorism. Anyone here wants to write that, fantastic. But, I think an approach that we can all agree on, is that an effort is made on this page that, in addition to a summary of the history of the CIA that will be a long term goal, let's pen that in for next friday at 4, I suggest that summaries be made for the CIA under different presidents. Doing that piece by piece seems like a manageable, realistic way of getting the prose size of the article under 100kb. I think that should address the concern about size. This article should at least have, for instance, something on the bay of pigs. Then, if there's going to be a history of the CIA article, it too would have another summary, and then there would be an entire article about the bay of pigs. That's one way to go, and that seems to fit into the wikipedia model. But this is going to be a large, time consuming project, touching basically every article about the CIA and coordinating what information goes where. But there is absolutely no reason for this article to suffer for the sake of expediency. It would be great if you could just copy and paste a little bit, save changes, and fix everything. But I think my proposal preserves the quality of this article while addressing the size issue. I guess smaller parts of history that don't merit their own article will end up in the regional articles.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is already suffering from being difficult to read because it is far too long. It needs about a 25-40% reduction in prose. Many of the sections with their own main articles could be chopped down to a few sentences or a short paragraph. I don't see why the History section can't be split off and a single paragraph left to pitch the highlights. (Hohum @) 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from having a short history, one paragraph, maybe a few paragraphs, but I'd also like to see some highlights on this page. Highlights of major events during different president's tenures, and, for instance, things like the bay of pigs. I think that's a goal we can all agree on. But I don't see how replacing the entire history section with "the cia was founded on..." improves anything at all. The plan I propose will probably reduce the prose size of the history section by 50% or more. Some sections will be eliminated, and some sections will be reduced to sentences. The congo section, for instance could be reduced to a single sentence, or eliminated, probably eliminated. Chad, the dominican republic, those sections would either be reduced to a single sentence or eliminated. But it's not as simple as just eliminating, for instance, those sections. I think we can all agree that there should be a paragraph or two on each presidential administration that serves as the concise coverage of the topic. Bill Clinton's presidency triggered a shift in the CIA from a focus on political power struggles (for instance) to a focus on human rights abuses, although in the instance of Somalia, that was triggered by his predecessor. During Clinton's presidency there was also a shift to a focus on terrorism, with the creation (iirc, not sure if the dates coincide) of the CIA's counterterrorism center, as well as the discovery of aldrich ames, who had sold the identities of every contact the CIA had in Russia to the KGB. It should probably also mention al qaeda and osama bin laden. I think that would meet, for instance, Hohum's goals of reducing the size of the history section by 25%-40%, it would meet wikipedia guidelines for covering topics like this at several levels. I think it would address everyone's concerns. But the changes would have to be coordinated with the other articles, the regional articles, and articles, about, for instance, the '53 iranian coup, or the bay of pigs and so on.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think presidential summaries should be in the history article. This article should focus on now. (Hohum @) 20:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would this article about the CIA focus on any one aspect of the CIA? Is that what people visiting the article are looking for? Do people viewing the article just want to know about what the agency is doing this exact moment? Should everything else be replaced with bare links to other articles?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's been awhile, but not much action has emerged here. As such, I have replaced the lengthy history section with the link to the new article at History of the Central Intelligence Agency and a brief summary. This has significantly reduced the article's length, which is functional as per WP:SIZERULE. We shouldn't have both the history article and its content also replicated on the main CIA page. Of course, the history section in this main article can be expanded with various summarizing information, as has been discussed above. Also of note is that at 111 kilobytes, the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article itself also qualifies for spinouts as per WP:SIZERULE, but it may be better to keep the content of that article all in one place. North America1000 11:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You replaced the entire history section with a redundant statement of when the agency was founded? Why do you insist on breaking policy in numerous ways forcing a no effort fork leaving nothing other than the link and redundant information about when the agency was founded? What is the need for haste on this? Why is a prose size of 108kb a crisis? Why are you performing almost the definition of an unacceptable fork? What is the urgency that requires immediate action when you replace it not with the required summary, but redundant information about when the agency was founded? Why do you deliberately ignore the discussion in the talk page, and choose to act without consensus? Why do I assume that you're one of those people that think that consensus on wikipedia is the result of a vote(my way of reminding you about consensus policy)?TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Butchered the history section to mindlessly appease the gods of expediency. Prose size is now 97kb.TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, users in the discussions above have suggested a spinout article of the history section. There's no haste, it's simple organization per an editing guideline. This does not break policy, it is adherence to a proper guideline. I'll state it again in case you missed it – of course, the history section in this main article can be expanded with various summarizing information, as has been discussed above. This is not a content fork, it's a valid and functional spinoff. I haven't ignored the discussion on this talk page whatsoever. Also, any and all input from all interested Wikipedia editors is certainly welcome. North America1000 13:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
TeeTylerToe has reverted the spinout for the second time (diff), with the edit summary "Butchering the history section". So, at this time, content in the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article is again duplicated in this article. North America1000 14:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
See the thread directly below. Requesting a formal discussion regarding this matter. North America1000 14:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the history section of Central Intelligence Agency be split to History of the Central Intelligence Agency?[edit]

To reduce page length, a WP:SPINOUT was created that moved content from Central Intelligence Agency to History of the Central Intelligence Agency. This has now been reverted twice by one user. Per the editing guideline WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kilobytes should "almost certainly should be divided". The article is presently at 172 97 kilobytes readable prose size. Users in threads above on the talk page have suggested that this split of the History section would serve to functionally reduce the page's size and better-organize it, while others have opposed this. Some have also suggested additional various means to reduce the page's length. North America1000 14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. The history section is the longest one in the article, so it is logical to split this section to a new article, as per WP:SPINOUT and WP:SPINOFF. North America1000 14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The section is far, far too long. NorthAmerica, are you sure the RfC is necessary? It seems to me that a consensus exists above, and that what TeeTylerToe is objecting to is the length of the summary you produced. I am also a little culpable here, as I said I would evolve an intermediate, but RL intervenes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely needs to be split. The summary can be written and tweaked afterwards. (Hohum @) 15:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's Complicated If Northamerica1000 portrays my position as being against reducing the size of the history section, that is a straw man argument, because, as I have stated earlier on this talk page, I do support making the history section a better, more concise summary. If Northamerica1000 portrays my position as being against the history section being a summary of the history of the CIA, that is a straw man argument, because, as I have stated earlier on this talk page, I do support making the history section a concise summary of the history of the CIA and I discussed that, and different methods it could be done earlier. Now, if you actually read WP:SPINOUT, you know that, for the purposes of article size, you use prose size, which, in the case of this article, as I said in this talk page, and as it says in the big box right at the top of the article, is 97kb. Even northamerica1000 recognizes that what he keeps replacing the history section with is nothing like a real summary which begs the question, why keep replacing the history section with basically nothing, violating the rules on splittng, and obviously acting in haste over a invented crisis. This breaks several policies at the same time. Shoot for the moon, eh? It would be valid if northamerica1000 spent the time to actually create a summary of the history of the cia rather than replacing the section with redundant information on when the cia was founded. Which is what was being discussed in the talk page, which wouldn't be a surprise for people that weren't ignoring the discussion. Why discuss how to split an article when you can just replace the history section with when the agency was founded? As for northamerica1000's argument that because the history section is large that it should be split, that is an argument for expediency. What is the need for haste? Why choose the most expedient option over better options? Why leave the history section with just a notation of when the agency was founded? Why do editors insist on a hasty, no effort edit that only serves to make the article worse? Articles need to stand on their own, per wikipedia policy. The history summary needs to be able to stand on it's own.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I agree with Hohum above, "The summary can be written and tweaked afterwards". This could be performed collaboratively among interested editors. North America1000 16:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
If you're talking about after the creation of the history of the cia article, well, you created that a week ago or so. Sometimes it gets as many as 20 hits on a high activity day. But what is the need for haste? Why rush replacing the entire history section with basically nothing?TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Butchery"[edit]

I ask the editor who has just made some very obvious protest edits to revert them before someone seeks administrative action. It is not acceptable behaviour, and strains assumption of good faith to beyond its limit. The attitude behind comments like "Why discuss things on talk pages when you can just mindlessly cut stuff" is not collegiate. (Hohum @) 16:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Company[edit]

Some years ago the article intro included a mention of the fact that the CIA sometimes goes by the name of Other Government Agencies, The Agency, or The Company. I'm not sure when this was removed but I feel it should be re-added since it's useful info that isn't mentioned anywhere else within the article. Slac speak up! 09:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)