Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

History section

It's way too long. And there's a dedicated article to this topic already: History of the CIA. 90% of the material is either a content fork or needs to be moved there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a little the other way around. The problem is more that History of the CIA is too short (because it's a verbatim copy of the history in this article), rather than the history in this section being too long. I mean, for instance, the indonesia section could be tightened a little, but in general, the problem is not that the history section is too long. In fact, it needs to be developed more. And, in fact, people have been carving out more macro trends leaving a collection of isolated facts. Ripping out any broad themes that would be appropriate for an overview article in the name of... who knows. As if the problem with this article is that exactly how well it conforms to the unstated strictures of an arbitrary length rule beyond being roughly less than 100k unless there's good reason, and not that the problem is that the history section is actually under-developed, and should be improved by adding larger, more broad trends in the history of the CIA. Things like the continual, half century plus long dissatisfaction with the CIA workforce, WRT things like, language skills, and familiarity with "hot spots". How accountable is the CIA to the president, congress, and the american people? How has the relationship between the CIA and the military changed over time? How has the relationship between the analysis side of the CIA and the action side of the CIA changed over time?TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

And what happened to the CIA's largest paramilitary operation, when they raised and maintained a Secret Army of 30,000 guerrillas for 15 years in the mountains of Laos?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

Under subsection Bay of Pigs 1st line <<planned to curry his favor with money and guns>> carry instead of curry. Zuluxrayalpha (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: curry is correct. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curry%20favor. Carry would be incorrect here Cannolis (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016

Could somebody change and add the Start date and age template from "|founded = {Start date and years ago|1947|9|18}" to "|founded = {Start date and age|1947|9|18}"? 108.45.29.72 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Transclusions of the redirect {{Start date and years ago}} (number 3000+) could best be taken care of with a bot request. Why change only this one when there are 3000 more? Not done for now — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Undercover C.I.A ppl

How do I become a C.I.A agent C.I.Alover21 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Go to their website and fill out the application. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

  • 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

Low-quality material in the Nixon section

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

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)

 Done 97198 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

"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

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)

The photo is wrong (mirrored)

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)
I'm responding only to say that I agree that we need a mirror image of what is in the article. I'm not on Commons so I'll let someone else take care of the housekeeping. -Location (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks and Vault 7

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 cyber investigation 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 leaks appear to be reliable enough to have at least a mention in the "controversies" section. RedGreenBanana (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Dov Levin did a report that US has meddled in election 81 times in 54 years

"Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University" did a report that US has meddled in election 81 times in 54 years.[11] 81 times between 1946 and 2000.[12].

Is there an article on this on Wikipedia? Flylikeaseagull (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean Carnegie Mellon political scientist Dov (with a V) Levin (not this Dov Levin), per your source. General Ization Talk 19:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
yes. Thank you. (corrected) Flylikeaseagull (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
hello - i created the stub Draft:Dov Levin (Professor) Flylikeaseagull (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Update for a subarticle

Organizational structure of the Central Intelligence Agency should be updated, as many positions and divisions have since been renamed and as the persons and their actions, which are reported in the article, are practically all from the Bush term. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should think about how to make this kind of stuff more maintainable. We might benefit from trying to move the focus away from how the CIA (and other secretive organizations) is organized right now, to how it has evolved and changed over time. Bureaucratic evolution never becomes outdated. This may be simpler said than done, it's just something I've thought about when trying to reorganize Directorate of Operations (CIA) recently. This article is interesting. Uglemat (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Update the picture of the Director from Mike Pompeo to Gina Haspel

This is going to change again when the new director is appointed, but Gina Haspel should have her picture up for the director rather than Mike Pompeo in the Organizational Structure section. Requesting to change it to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Gina_Haspel_official_CIA_portrait.jpg

Eticology (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eticology:  Done Corky 03:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"In fiction"

I propose that TV series Homeland is added for the "In fiction" section. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation 12 is a dead link

Link to washington post article did not work for me. This link did: https://wapo.st/17sEENT

73.72.204.221 (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Uglemat (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War--unclear phrasing re: timeline

I've added a clarify tag to the Syrian Civil War section; the current version immediately follows the US' cessation of funding/supplying rebel groups with an ambiguous mention of the rebels claiming to receive weapons from a particular (presumably US intelligence code-name) organization. The timing of the two details in relation to each other is unclear; my first read was that although US gov't had nominally ended their support for the rebels, rebel groups nonetheless reported subsequently that they were still receiving weapons/funds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YarLucebith (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(Impartial) Tone

There are quite a few sentences in this article that don't have the formal tone of an encyclopedic article, like this one:

Al Qaeda threats were ubiquitous in daily Presidential CIA briefings, but it may have become a case of the boy who cries wolf.

Also the History section over large portions is just a list of all the things the CIA got wrong. It's alright to include them, but I would expect a little more context. Otherwise it reads like a list of complaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:675:3e60:4ca1:269e:3d6d:bc63 (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. - theWOLFchild 04:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Article split

Following the example of List of FBI controversies, when it was split from the main FBI article, I have split the list of controversies off to List of CIA controversies, per WP:TOOBIG. The page was 210kB, it is now 159kB. - wolf 19:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC — Controversies

Regarding this change: Should the tag be removed? What else do you recommend to improve this article? There is an ongoing dispute regarding the Controversies section. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

An RfC is to get other editors involved in determining specific proposals for changes to the article. You've had an offer on your talk page to create something that might be a proper summary to insert here (rather than your personal selection of cases which was properly reverted). You should take that up and only raise an RfC if resolution is not possible -----Snowded TALK 17:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Now he's posting RfC's after a full week of refusing to engage. And this is over a 'tag'...? Seriously? Just join the, work out summary and get this over. I don't why you are trying to drag this out so long, not to mention all this drama. - wolf 17:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Snowded, you yourself advised me to use RfC — diff. Regarding this edit, per WP:RFC: "Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An {{rfc}} tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met." -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Its an improper RfC in the first place. - wolf 20:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

I really don't see why we shouldn't include a few links and a good summary — diff, diff, diff — per WP:CORRECTSPLIT: "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article. Note: it may be best to prepare this in advance as summarising several pages of text and selecting a single image may not be a trivial task. Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic." -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And I don't see why you cant follow the rules for a content dispute like everyone else. And how many different talk pages do you intend to spread this across? I've already replied to you. - wolf 16:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild:, please don't remove template messages — diff. We have to follow the WP:CORRECTSPLIT. So, what's your proposal? -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Which examples you choose represent synthesis and given a linked article they really aren't necessary. I'm inclined to remove the tag as its unnecssary and implies your perspective is accepted which it isn't -----Snowded TALK 12:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You are wikihounding by reverting my edits throughout Wikipedia, Snowded — diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tobby72 - I've replied to your talk page. - wolf 12:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild — Please discuss on this article's talk page. I've already made suggestions — diff, diff, diff. I've also invited other users to discuss and edit this article. — diff, diff. So, what's your specific proposal? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tobby - I've just replied to you, but you already know that. - wolf 23:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2019

It should be like this: 1. Cyber intelligence, the top priority (Without it, you can not identify the suspected state-non, state actors these days. Chinese have built their whole defense complex because of the stolen material of US and Europe. Situation of Cyber security inside US owned firms is pathetic, if you know anything about that only.) 2. Counterintelligence (If the agency is infiltrated by the moles, all other things are useless.) 3. Counter-terrorism,(WMD is no threat, the radioactive material in a suitcase, in the hands of ISIS or AL Qaida-(though non-existent but 

  still a large support base in countries like Saudi Arebia) is a bigger threat)    )

4. Warning/informing American leaders of important overseas events (If the leaders and policy makers are informed about everything, they wont allow anything too. You should learn from your own operation, Abbotabad. The way the Obama Administration was in dark till last moment, was the key to success for the whole operation. Otherwise, the politics would have never allowed the Helos to cross the Pakistani borders at all, leave the raid at all. When the people shared their info about ISIS, in 2013, well in advance, when it was still in its infancy, what happened, is still a history. Check with Mattis, he knows better.). 5. Nonproliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. (Unless and until, the top 4 are meeting, you cant do anything about the fifth issue.) Ims2012034 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 12:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"Bay of Pigs thing"

The words "Cuba Invasion" are not in the source and should not have been added. It is WP:NOR in that is "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". I have removed it, but it was reverted, so I will stick in a 'Not specifically in source' tag for now.--Epideme12 (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summaries imply that the "Bay of Pigs thing" might mean something else - and that you're employing your own interpretation that it might have nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs invasion, which seems to me to be a very odd way to approach it. I have no objection to quoting Nixon directly as the substance of your edit does, but I have a little trouble with the idea that you're implying via edit summary there might be some other veiled allusion. You're getting into an extremely literal interpretation of NOR while at the same time advancing an unsourced argument that "Bay of Pigs thing" was some sort of code phrase for something else. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
And here's a source [13] Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your source does not mention what "Bay of Pigs" meant and if anything is a source to back up my edit summary. My edit summary was NPOV. I do not have any opinion on what "Bay of pigs" actually meant, but it is a cryptic comment that does not obviously mean the Cuban invasion. I am stunned that you reverted this edit on the basis of my edit summary, rather than on the edit itself. Epideme12 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times article clearly describes the allusion to "the Bay of Pigs thing" as a threat to bring up Democratic involvement int eh Bay of Pigs invasion. It mentions it several times and makes it clear that this was a threat by Nixon . There's no "code phrase" or anything of the sort. "Nixon Explains His Taped Cryptic Remark About Helms." As I said, I'm fine with quoting Nixon directly, but there's no actual doubt or absence of sources to explainwhat Nixon was talking about. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to read the NYT article again. The only time it mentions what Nixon said was 'Mr. Nixon said that his statement to Mr. Haldeman about having protected Mr. Helms had concerned the forthcoming publication, by a former C.I.A. employee, of a book “which would, for the first time, reveal a great deal of classfied information about the C.I.A.”' This has nothing to do with the Cuba invasion and even less about Democratic involvement!? Epideme12 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to explain how you get to the notion that the "Bay of Pigs thing" doesn't actually have anything to do with Nixon's threat to politically weaponize the Bay of Pigs operations by the CIA, which the NYT article mentions in some detail. I'm guessing it has something to do with Oliver Stone, since we have here an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that goes into extensive detail about Nixon's obsession with the Bay of Pigs business and how he planned to use it [14], in the context of debunking Stone. "New tapes debunk Oliver Stone's "Nixon'." Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
>I think you need to explain how you get to the notion that the "Bay of Pigs thing" doesn't actually have anything to do with Nixon's threat.
No. I think you need to explain why it does. Your second link is full of opinion, but very little fact. Thanks for the suggestion I watch Nixon. I will add it to my watch list. Epideme12 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

New onion site

CIA now has an onion site: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2019-press-releases-statements/ciagov-over-tor.html

Please edit to mention it. --Alexvong1995 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot add the onion link because onion links are blacklisted. --Alexvong1995 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For how long? Smithydebbie (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (deleting it is a heavy-handed way of tring to re-write history. What is written in the page will be a news-worthy item and reprinted many times over, spreading the information of hatever you don't like far more than would have been the case if it was left up there...) --87.112.201.36 (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Dick Bissel should be linked

He has a page Richard_M._Bissell_Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.158.124 (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is biased and needs to be rewritten

This entire article has been modified by people with anti-American sentiment and reads like a long list of failures. If a well-funded agency did manage such a long list of failures without successes, that would need to be documented in its own section. Instead, the article reads as though the CIA just can't do anything right. And for that, the article needs to be torn down and rewritten from scratch. --Alterego (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the {{POV}} tag from the article as per criteria 2 and 3 of rules given here. You didn’t explain exactly which section(s) need a balancing of viewpoint(s) (per WP:DUE). Moreover, a requisite discussion about this dispute has been largely absent. Please explain exactly what content needs to be added. Also note that you are free to add it yourself. Furthermore, note that this article is a highly popular one, getting around 3,700 views per day. Putting a {{POV}} tag on the top of the article without a solid reason would be damaging to Wikipedia’s reputation, and therefore, should be avoided. Regards,— Vaibhavafro 💬 03:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
lol IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"The Company"

Why is there no mention of the CIA's famous internal nickname "the company"? In past decades, if you called it "the agency", that supposedly marked you as an outsider. (I don't know if that's still true.) AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has been asked. I seem to recall seeing it there before and I don't know if/when it was removed, but it has been re-added today. - wolf 06:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

“Possible new logo?”

In January 4th 2021 the CIA changed its logo on its social media accounts to a black and white version of its blue logo. It did this on its website too. And it’s Glassdoor account, basically any external accounts that it had. I don’t know if it’s using the blue logo anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.182.116 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's the logo. Dunno about replacing the other one. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
New CIA logo - January 2021
There is also this new logo that they released last month. (fyi) - wolf 20:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if they're using both logos but it seems on their official website they're using the black and white logo. Idk whats going on but theyre not using the blue logo anymore on any things of their owning if that makes sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineyprincess (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"Controversies" section hatnotes

The appropriate links to various controversies have remained as status quo for two years for good reason: they are entirely appropriate, and there is no reason to remove them. Cambial foliage❧ 14:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: You know, other content that didn't belong on WP has lasted a lot longer than that, but that didn't change the fact that it still didn't belong. There is already a page for List of CIA controversies, everything in those links (the relevant ones at least) are listed on that page. There is already a 'main' hatnote directing readers to that page, making this looong list of 'see also' hatnotes completely redundant. - wolf 14:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The fact that consensus has deemed the list of controversies worthy of its own article does not mean that there should be little or no content about it on this article. That reasoning is a little absurd. We don't remove summary content from the main article completely, just because there is a more detailed article available. Cambial foliage❧ 15:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
But... there wasn't a "consensus that deemed the list of controversies worthy of its own article". It was created out of the blue by some random editor who did just did it 'cuz they felt like it, with no prior input from the community what-so-ever. (And lying about imaginary "facts", now that is "absurd".) You still haven't explained this need for a list of redundant links. - wolf 16:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that the "random editor" who you say created the page out of the blue was none other than... you, disingenuously linking to a talk page where the comments about a split consist of one post... by you, I suggest keeping your comments about absurdity to yourself. One can't help but wonder whether your issue with this appropriate content is that you created that article as a Povfork to keep anything specific and negative in this section away from the main article. Given that you chose to cite WP:TOOBIG, we'll keep with that for now: "Content, especially summary, well sourced and non-tangential information, should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length". As for why the consensus is to include the content: it's the section about controversies. Those are some of the most prominent controversies. It's not difficult. The wide community consensus that WP:SUMMARY is appropriate policy is not overridden by one editor. That's why it has remained as status quo for as long as it has. Cambial foliage❧ 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Given that the "random editor" who you say created the page out of the blue was none other than... you" - aw gee, you caught me! I honestly thought you'd never figure it out.

"disingenuously linking to a talk page where the comments about a split consist of one post... by you" - wait, I what now? There are no links to any talk page in my previous comment, nor in the comment you linked to. Accusing someone of disingenuity while being disingenuous is just a whole other level of mendaciousness.

"I suggest keeping your comments about absurdity to yourself" - to be fair, you started it. Both the comments about absurdity and the absurd comments.

"One can't help but wonder whether..." ... yadda yadda yadda. Yes, I split the page. I did it WP:BOLDLY and Wikipedia:Article size is both a valid guideline and arguably the leading rationale to split content. (Which is usually a good thing as it's a sign of growth.) That said, if you want to contest the split, that's a whole different discussion, but good luck putting that genie back in the bottle.

"As for why the consensus is to include the content: it's the section about controversies. Those are some of the most prominent controversies. It's not difficult. The wide community consensus that WP:SUMMARY is appropriate policy is not overridden by one editor. That's why it has remained as status quo for as long as it has." - oy... it seems this is about as close to an answer as we're gonna get. You have not demonstrated any such consensus. As in, a recent discussion where the majority of contributors agreed there was a need for this redundant list of links. (I say "recent" because surely you know that consensus can change.) So even if there was a concensus at one time, there hasn't been one here, to support your revert.

There is no hidden agenda here. The fact that the CIA has been involved in a number of controversies is not in dispute. It is prominently mentioned and linked in the lead of this article, many of them are covered as part of the looong and detailed history of the agency on the page, and finally, the subject has it's own page. Readers are further directed to said page with a section header that both creates a table of contents entry and contains a prominent hatnote. Wp:summary is satisfied. All the addtional "see also" hatnotes are redundant. And since you haven't articulated a need for them, nor demonstrated a clear and and recent consensus in support of them, there is no reason to retain them.

Lastly, if all that somehow isn't sufficient, the guideline Wikipedia:Hatnote makes it clear they don't belong. - wolf 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you rehearsing material for a wishful comedy career? I should save yourself the bother. You link to the talk page in your article creation.
You've established there's no consensus for your reversion of this material; that's a start. There is a long-standing edit consensus to retain it; this is, in part, due to your earlier edit warring to avoid both WP:SUMMARY and WP:CORRECTSPLIT. I have no opinion on the split, but it should be carried out in accordance with policy. Wp:Hatnote suggests that multiple hat notes are appropriate when they serve different purposes, as in this case (Main & See also). It's not clear why you link to it. Cambial foliage❧ 09:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Well the flipside of my so called "comedy material" is this... well, whatever it is you're doing. It's just sad. >sigh< I created a talk page post when I split the page off, for discussion should anyone wish to contest it, which no one did. That was back in 2018. You yourself just now stated you have "no opinion on the split". Not sure why then you keep going on and on about it, and you still haven't demonstrated how I've done anything "disingenuously".
"You've established there's no consensus for your reversion of this material; that's a start." - oh, so now you agree there is no consensus? But for days now you've been repeatedly claiming there was. So, which is it?
"Wp:Hatnote suggests that multiple hat notes are appropriate when they serve different purposes, as in this case (Main & See also)." - now that is almost funny, and most certainly disingenuous. You're trying to assert that "Main", as in; "see these CIA controversies on the List of CIA controversies page", and "See also", as in; "see these same CIA controversies, also on the List of CIA controversies page", are somehow different? There are no "different purposes" here, they are all CIA controversies and they are all on the List of CIA controversies page. And Wp:hatnote doesn't "suggest", it's actually quite clear;
"Ideally, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page or section. Multiple hatnotes may be appropriate when they serve different purposes, such as disambiguating topics with similar names and explaining redirects."
Anything else? - wolf 17:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty clear you think yourself very clever; quoting a few snippets of text to play around with, while ignoring the surrounding text and the problems with your desire to revert this long-standing material. Your bizarre attempts at refutation aren't fooling anyone, and have no bearing on the relevant content policy. I'll not join in.
The notion that a single sentence is an appropriate summary of a 3000+ word article is facetious and stupid nonsense. Following your split, you edit warred to avoid following WP:CORRECTSPLIT and WP:SUMMARY, reducing the section to nothing but a hatnote [15][16], and then to one sentence [17][18][19]. If I had more time at present I would also look to reconstruct an appropriate summary. For now, retaining this long-standing and entirely appropriate – with or without a proper summary – aspect of the status quo will suffice. Regarding wp:hatnote – you haven't managed to accurately reproduce how the Main template and See also template are worded. Those templates serve different purposes. Their actual wording is on the article if you need to check. Cambial foliage❧ 18:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, so now you're going to play ring and run; post some more deceitful nonsense, along with even more off-topic wanderings, then tack on some straw-man, followed by an "I don't have time" excuse and bail.

Despite claiming to have "no opinion" on the separate issue of an uncontested article split from three years ago, you keep going back to that, yet I only asked you a simple, on-point question; how do you justify that list of completely redundant hatnote links? You haven't done that. And, despite you misquoting Wp:hatnote, it still applies, and it still says those redundant links do not belong. - wolf 21:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing was deceitful; there's no straw man; proper observance of split policy is relevant; I haven't misquoted anything. Quit WP:GASLIGHTING. The inclusion of a see also to the major controversies in the section on controversies is entirely appropriate and in line with MOS:BODY. Cambial foliage❧ 21:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost every post you've made contains something that is in some way not true. Add to that the persistent off-topic comments, the repeated insults and refusal to address the issue at hand, and I'm not surprised you are intimately familiar with the concept of "gaslighting". But, let's stick with the hatnotes; Do you have a quote from mos:body to support your edit? Otherwise, you have still failed to demonstrate a need for this redundant list of links. - wolf 22:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No-one's insulted you, and lying is uncivil. Putting the word redundant in bold will not make it any less obviously irrelevant here.

When a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section, a link to that article should appear immediately under the section heading. You can use the {{Main}} template to generate a "Main article" link, in Wikipedia's "hatnote" style.

If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition, see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text. These additional references should be grouped along with the {{Main}} template (if there is one), or at the foot of the section that introduces the material for which these templates provide additional information. You can use one of the following templates to generate these links:

* {{Further}} – this generates a "Further information" link

* {{See also}} – this generates a "See also" link

Cambial foliage❧ 22:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
You have posted both lies and insults. And I didn't ask you to copy & paste the entire mos:body guideline, I just asked, (since you cited it and all), to provide a quote that supports your need to include this list of redundant links. - wolf 02:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I see that you're still editing, so choosing not to respond here further, which is fine... there's likely nothing new to be added here. Perhaps when you have time, you can write that summary you were concerned about (which will likely take less time and effort than you've expended here). Summarizing a fork is different than hatnotes. Have a nice day - wolf 18:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed; little to be added here, which is why I saw no reason to respond. You've given no valid reasons for your reversion of this "See also" hatnote. I see no reason to discuss it ad nauseam. Stop beating a dead horse and insisting on an inappropriate reversion. Cambial foliage❧ 18:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, if you are going to cite "dead horse", perhaps read it, along with all the other policies, guidelines and essays that have been noted, and learn what actually applies, and more importantly, what doesn't. You have not shown any consensus or guideline to support the inclusion of a redundant set of hatnotes. Wp:hatnote is clear in that they don't belong. Repeatedly adding something, simply because you like it, or just because you don't like being reverted (or both) is tendentious and disruptive behavior. Your efforts would be better spent expanding on the summary of the section. You've repeatedly indicated that is of importance to you, yet have put zero effort into it. You claim you don't have time, yet you clearly have plenty of time to persistently edit war and debate over a set of needless and redundant links, ad nauseam. Putting your energies toward the summary is something that would actually benefit readers, as opposed to... this
- wolf 19:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
MOS:BODY describes literally exactly this use of a combination of "Main" and "See also" hatnotes as normal practice. You can rest easy; none of them are redundant (yes, neither putting it in bold nor linking to a dictionary definition will make it any less obviously irrelevant: who knew?). HATNOTE does not support your edit: the section you quote is clear that those with different purposes can be combined, which is entirely consistent with BODY. This is not about adding something, it's maintaining the two-year status quo following your reversion, as you well know, and you lying about that will get you nowhere. When an adequate summary is reintroduced, there will still be no reason to remove these, with the caveat of those which are wikilinked in the section text. There is no consensus for your change. If you want to seek consensus for your silly and pointless amendment with no basis in policy, you are welcome to do so. Failing that, move on. Cambial foliage❧ 09:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
>sigh< "Lies" (what exactly did I lie about?) "reverts" (I made an edit, you were the first to revert) and "sanction gaming" (say what?).
Focus. I removed a redundant hatnote, as per the hatnote guideline. I don't need a consensus to do that. You are adding that redundant hatnote with your revert. You don't have consensus for it and mos doesn't seem to support it. As I asked earlier, why don't you just work on the summary? You claimed you intend to but "don't have time", but that is clearly not true. So why is it you don't want to work on the summary and resolve your hatnote problem? - wolf 23:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
sigh – do try not to get agitated. You lied about me adding something, and then about some imagined reasons: Repeatedly adding something, simply because you like it, or just because you don't like being reverted. The imagined reasons sound like your own fears. Material was added in April 2019 by another editor. It's been the stable status quo for two years. You reverted that addition. That reversion was again reverted by me back to the status quo. Compare this section in January to that now. Nothing has been added. Desperately mischaracterising another editor action as disruptive or improper is the definition of trying to game the system..
Each time you rehash the same transparently flawed arguments it remains equally boring. The hatnote is not redundant; MOS describes exactly this combination of <Main> and <See also>; I don't have a hatnote problem. What is yours? Cambial foliage❧ 20:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Heh, ok.... so I add "sigh" and that somehow means I'm "agitated", but then you immediately add it yourself, what does that make you? Super-agitated? Doesn't that seem a little bit hypocritical? Actually never mind, I don't care. The "sigh" is me wondering when, or if, you are going to focus on discussing the content and relevant guidelines. You only seem interested in posting repeated personal attacks. So, again: focus.

"'You lied about me adding something..." - um, this is you "adding something", and you adding it again, and again and again.

"...and then about some imagined reasons" - oh, that wasn't a lie, I honestly believe those are your reasons for repeatedly reverting those redundant hatnotes back into the article. If you want to give some alternate and relevant reason for doing so, go right ahead.

"The imagined reasons sound like your own fears" - (my "fears" apparently being some type of "psychological projection"...?). Annnd this is why I have to repeatedly ask you to focus. It's this truculence, these personal attacks and refusal to engage, that has dragged this on so long.

"Material was added in April 2019 by another editor. It's been the stable status quo for two years." - yes, you keep going on and on about that. It doesn't matter if it's been there for 2 minutes or 2 decades, when it doesn't belong there in the first place.

"You reverted that addition." - no, I just removed it. I didn't use "undo" or save to an earlier version of the page. I don't think that specific hatnote could've been reverted out anyway. But, is it really that important to you that my initial removal be called a revert?

"Desperately mischaracterising another editor action as disruptive or improper is the definition of trying to game the system." - a stunning lack of self-awareness, but again... focus.

"Each time you rehash the same transparently flawed arguments it remains equally boring." - I stated the applicable guideline; you refused to accept it... that's not the same as "not convincing people with an argument". But further to that, you made a claim about the summary, and have since refused to respond to any questions about that. Why is that? - wolf 00:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The last edit before yours was 4 March by Þjarkur. Since then, nothing has been added. The material does belong there in the first place. Your link to hatnote does not support your desired change. Its addition is supported in the MOS.
Angrily admonishing others to focus repeatedly (in bold, wow!), and then finishing your comment with "why won't you answer my questions about <something irrelevant>?" is not an optimal strategy for achieving consensus for your proposed edit. Cambial foliage❧ 00:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"The last edit before yours was 4 March by Þjarkur." - which is completely irrelevant.
"Angrily admonishing others to focus" - "Angrily"...? You base that on what? All the CAPS and exclamation marks?!!!! Oh, wait...

This here is precisely why I need to repeatedly ask that you focus (in bold wow!) on content, instead of acting like you're in some message board flame-war.

"finishing your comment with "why won't you answer my questions about <something irrelevant>?" is not an optimal strategy for achieving consensus for your proposed edit." - I was asking you about the summary, which in fact you mentioned first and repeatedly, so you made it relevant. You claimed you would work on the summary if you had time. So with that, I saw perhaps an avenue to a resolution, which is also relevant. Just because you were caught in a fib, or can't be bothered to do what you said, or if the outcome of such changes might not suit you... does not make it "irrelevant". Otherwise, I'm not "proposing an edit". I removed content based on the guidelines. I don't need consensus for that. You're interested in retaining said content, and claimed the summary would support that. So to that end, I again ask; when do you plan on working on the summary? Simple question. - wolf 03:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The last edit before your disruption is relevant to determine if anything has been added. Shocker: it hasn't. You pretend I was caught in what imaginary fib this time, I wonder? n.b.: That's a rhetorical question: I couldn't care less.
BODY: "If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition, see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text. These additional references should be grouped along with the {{Main}} template (if there is one)". An appropriate summary would only necessitate removal of those which are wikilinked in the text. The existence of links to those appropriate sources of further information in a different article does not render them redundant in this article (quite obviously). Given that the <See also> hatnotes are wholly appropriate as per the guidelines, when I intend to address the inadequate summary is not relevant. Your edits are not exempt from the need for consensus; there is no consensus for them. Cambial foliage❧ 09:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"Yadda yadda yadda... I don't want to to discuss the multiple lies I posted here." - Sure, if you can stay on point, than we'll just move forward.
BODY - might apply if there was one. That's why your claim that you intended to work on that is relevant. Right now, there's just the one sentence that mentions the controversies, all those controversies are noted in the article about said controversies, and there is already a hatnote pointing readers to that article. Additional hatnotes, pointing to the same controversies are at this point redundant. It doesn't matter how long they have been there or what edits took place just prior to mine. I removed the redundant hatnotes per wp:hatnote, so my edit did not require consensus and was not "disruptive". Edit-warring, false accusations, posting deliberate lies and repeated personal attacks are "disruptive". Generally, the onus is on the editor trying to add (or re-add) content, especially disputed content, to seek consensus.
Additionally, per WP:TALKHEADPOV; Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. This debate is about the ""Controversy" section hatnotes", not just your issue with the "removal" of them. Edit-warring to repeatedly change a section header to a non-neutral title is "disruptive".
Lastly, I asked a simple, on-point question, as a possible means to a resolution, and I asked because you brought it up; do you still intend to work on the summary? Simple question - wolf 16:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
If you don't want to discuss the lies you posted, the solution is simple: stop posting them. This includes making up quotes by other editors. Edit-warring, false accusations, posting deliberate lies and repeated personal attacks are "disruptive". I agree; stop it. This is part of the body of the article, and hence the section of MOS applies. The <See also> hatnotes you seek to remove are not redundant in this article. You haven't made the slightest effort to demonstrate that they are. That's probably wise in one sense, because it's so plainly obvious that they are not redundant. But on the other hand it also means there's no justification for your edit whatsoever. You've just stated that in your proposed edit you removed these; that's the subject of this talk discussion and hence the title is neutral – no specific view is given. Your edit requires consensus; none exists for it. Answer to question: yes. It will not affect whether these hatnotes are appropriate.
Regarding onus: when new material is added the onus is on those adding it to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. The fact that the material is still on the page 2 years, >1000 page watchers, and >200 edits later establishes this as part of the status quo. Onus does not mean material can be removed years later at the whim of one editor without consensus. There is WP:NOCONSENSUS for your edit: "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept...In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Cambial foliage❧ 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"If you don't want to discuss the lies you posted, the solution is simple: stop posting them." - this is now outside of reality. I haven't lied about anything. (We know you have, as noted above, but I haven't.) No wonder I've had to repeatedly ask that you to focus, as in; focus on edits, not editors. "Body"... again. The tenuous connection you keep trying to make to there is not as clear and on point as wp:hatnote. The 2 year bit... again. Here; read this. I see you conveniently left the link out of your NOCON quote that shows it's referring to AfD, etc. I see you have again refused to answer any question about your claims wrt working on the summary. Odd, considering you brought it up in the first place and made such a big deal about it. It's clear now that I can't expect anything further from you in the way of engagement. (Actually, well past that. So much for agf.) I keep trying to move towards some kind of resolution, you keep posting personal attacks. Another difference is you are obviously willing to endlessly edit war over these redundant hatnotes and I'm not. So I will leave them. For now.

On a slightly separate point; this is about the hatnotes in the "controversies" section. I removed some of them, you re-added them. Labelling the section header with either "Removal of" or "Addition of" is counter to WP:TPG, hence the reason I went with the neutral label of ""Controversies" section hatnotes". Your persistent change to a skewed header is in violation of TPG (and WP:EW, WP:TE, etc., etc.) I have no problem with a neutral header, why do you? - wolf 01:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Useful source on paramilitary ops

https://doi.org/10.1080/14682745.2016.1177513 (open-access summary here). GABgab 17:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

I want to update the budget data for this page TheSpaceGuy22 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done As per the instructions in the template, you should post your request in a "change 'X' to 'Y' format", and in this case, you would need to also attach a source for the new data. - wolf 01:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Added Kosovo paragraph

Fully sourced, copy paste only for quotes, clear..be well. Osterluzei (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been removed as UNDUE. Too much info about the "heroin and body organs" trafficking of an alleged criminal organization, that may have been supported by elements of the Kosovo government, with a tenuous connection to the CIA in the '90s. Only information that is directly related to the CIA, and fully supported by reliable sources should be included, and even then, it would belong in the List of CIA controversies page. - wolf 13:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2601:646:8003:7220:2900:45EF:A895:E5ED (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Madam Rachel ReAnne Hilla Foriegn policy commander in chief Brookings institute.

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, which seem to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Updated seal but appears squashed?

Hi all, updated the seal based on the recent 2021 rebrand into black and white design however for some reason the infobox won't update and the seal appears squashed? Most likely it will fix itself eventually but if someone could provide some answers that'd be great thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunt38 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

CIA involvement in Mexico.

The CIA helped to create the Dirección Federal de Seguridad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.176.47 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Cuba: Sabotage and Terrorism - Neutrality

This section titled Cuba: Sabotage and Terrorism is incredibly biased and poorly worded. Its not a balanced overview of covert actions in Cuba. Some of the sources don't call these attacks terrorism so the label is clearly contentious. Some of the information is misrepresented or exaggerated. It says attacks killed "significant numbers of civilians" and "large number of civilians killed in the CIA's terrorist attacks". But the sources don't say this or give death estimates and simply say Cubans were killed in attacks. It's very vague. It also says "Though the level of terrorist activity directed by the CIA lessened in the second half of the 1960s, in 1969 the CIA was directed to intensify its operations against Cuba." The source doesn't say this, it says Nixon ordered an increase in operations against Cuba and nothing about terrorist attacks. The mention of the Cubana 455 bombing needs to be clarified because it could be misinterpreted as being a CIA ordered attack with the current wording and the section title. This whole section could be cut down a bit and summarized more. GelShick92 (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@GelShick92: you have a few options here;
You can wait until you have enough time and edits (4 days and 10 edits), and then you can make changes yourself - any changes that you feel will improve the article.
Or you can request changes using the edit request template - but ensure your request is made in a "change x to y" format.
Or, you can wait to see if someone will act on your current post and make changes.
It's up to you - wolf 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Contrary to the claim that the sources don't say this or give death estimates, the reference given immediately after the sentence you quote cites a formal démarche lodged with the United Nations, indicating a figure of 3,748 Cuban deaths (p.392).[1] So rather than an estimate it gives an exact figure. The scholarship of the past 30 years characterises the US' policy and actions in the Cuban Project as terrorism so frequently as to be a commonplace. It is now largely done without comment, though occasionally historians seek to clarify their use of the term in this context (e.g.[2]). As to this sentence: in 1969 the CIA was directed to intensify its operations against Cuba." The source doesn't say this, it says Nixon ordered an increase in operations against Cuba; I'll not comment, out of politeness. These points suggest you are not entirely familiar with the sources you seek to critique. All that said, the term "large number" involves an excessive degree of value judgement, so I'll remove it. Cambial foliage❧ 22:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Franklin, Jane (2016). Cuba and the U.S. empire : a chronological history. New York: New York University Press. pp. 45–63, 388–392, et passim. ISBN 9781583676059. Retrieved 2 February 2020.
  2. ^ Bacevich, Andrew (2010). Washington rules : America's path to permanent war (First ed.). New York: Henry Holt and Company. pp. 77–80. ISBN 9781429943260. Retrieved 2 February 2020. In its determination to destroy the Cuban Revolution, the Kennedy administration heedlessly embarked upon what was, in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism... the actions of the United States toward Cuba during the early 1960s bear comparison with Iranian and Syrian support for proxies engaging in terrorist activities against Israel

Is their an estimate for CIA directed attacks from a more neutral party than the Cuban state? I said the sources didn't give figures for CIA attacks or say large numbers died in their attacks and this source doesn't actually give a figure for CIA directed attacks, such as operation Mongoose, as you claim. The full quote is "Cuba has reported to the United Nations that 3,478 Cubans have died and 2,099 have been disabled by terrorist activities, including the trade embargo". This is vague. When was this figure made and what exactly does it mean when it includes deaths, as Jane Franklin calls it, from the terrorist trade embargo? Are these deaths that wouldn't have occured had certain supplies been available from the US? It talks about terrorist attacks by exiles on page 391, like the Cubana flight attack which was not a CIA attack even if the CIA had knowledge exiles might attack a plane. So the source doesn't even say large numbers were killed by CIA terrorism or give a figure for CIA attacks and this figure isn't from a neutral party and it's unclear what exactly it refers to because it clearly includes deaths from non CIA attacks like the airline bombing regardless of whether Cuba and the author want to blame the CIA for all attacks. Anyway, thanks for removing the term "large number". GelShick92 (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I will also note that on the page for the Escambray rebellion it says "Norberto Fuentes, a close friend of Fidel Castro who had privileged knowledge of the Cuban state security apparatus, gave the figures of 3,478 killed and 2,099 wounded for Cubans fighting in the pro-government National Revolutionary Militia". So another source quotes this exact same figure from a friend of Castro and it refers to militia dead fighting rebels and not a figure reported to the UN for terrorism deaths. GelShick92 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source, because any idiot can add unsupported nonsense. You are expending a great many words on a number which is not and has never been in the article. Cambial foliage❧ 13:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fully in agreement that wikipedia is not a reliable source for multiple reasons. Thanks for spotting that edit too. Also, I'm just explaining the figure because you mentioned it implying it was an estimate of those killed by CIA terrorism which isn't the case. Anyway this figure isn't on the page so I guess it doesn't matter and you and I shouldn't expend any more words on it. GelShick92 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@GelShick92: Looking at the first four refs attached to the end of the second sentence of the first paragraph, there are some questions about the use of the word "terrorism" in this context. The first and fourth refs don't mention terrorism at all, the second one has "State Sponsored Terrorism" added to the cite as a... title? (Even though it's immediately followed by a linked title, so it's not clear what that's about.) The third ref, the GWU website, mentions the word "terrorist" twice, while discussing records released from the Nat'l Archives via FOI. But the word "terrorist" doesn't actually appear in the posted records, it's just part of the opinionated commentary of the GWU editors, John Prados and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi, discussing said records. It's not clear what kind of support there is for such opinions. Can we consider this as unbiased? Or is this a weight and/or neutrality issue? (Or even a sourcing issue?) Haven't looked at any additional refs yet. Perhaps whoever added this content can be pinged so they can add some clarification? Anyway, just some things to think about/look into. - wolf 15:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Your comments are incorrect. The first ref clearly characterises the project as "U.S.-government sponsored terrorism". The second ref uses "State Sponsored Terrorism" in the |chapter= parameter: an appropriate choice as that's the title of the chapter in the monograph. Your personal tagging of the third ref as "opinionated commentary" does not reflect how WP treats work authored by scholars and published by academic institutions. Finally, contrary to your claim, it's entirely clear what level of support there is for these sources' characterisation of the project as "terrorism": the multiple other sources used which use the same characterisation, the majority having been through a peer-review process and/or oversight by an academic-press editorial board. Cambial foliage❧ 16:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Relax, there's no need to get all wound up and hostile again. Not every discussion on WP needs to be a battle. I was just responding to GelShick92, with a few questions and observations, (with links as they are a new editor). I didn't initiate the discussion about that section, nor have I edited it - though it does need editing, for balance if anything. GelShick92, or any other interested parties, should consider whether other sources dispute the sponsored-by-US-terroism accusations. That is the reason I mentioned weight and neutrality. But for now, that's up to them. Have a nice day - wolf 13:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Who is wound up or hostile? I've merely corrected some rather obvious errors you made in your comment. You seem to be imagining things; perhaps consider whether your perception of hostility is a projection of your own feelings, just as it was in an earlier conversation. Cambial foliage❧ 14:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Res ipsa loquitur. I think we're done here. - wolf 15:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This section is poor and biased as discussed earlier and needs to be rewritten. I made edits that corrected misrepresented sources and I was blanket reverted with false reasoning. I even added dates and the death toll of the Cubana flight terrorist attack and this was reverted for some reason. There are obvious misrepresentations in the current text. For example the line "The operation was so extensive that it housed the largest number of CIA officers outside of Langley. It was a major employer in Florida, with several thousand agents in clandestine pay of the agency" is misrepresented because the quotes in the citations make it clear that Operation Mongoose itself employed 400 at the station whereas the reference to thousands on the payroll refers to people on the payroll of the CIA in general in Miami. I don't see why it shouldn't be made clear as I did in my edit that were at the station. M addition of the line "Operation Mongoose was discontinued in early 1963" was removed because it "gives an false impressions of what occurred. other sources are clear that the operation continued through 1965". This is original research. The citation is "While Operation Mongoose was discontinued early in 1963, terrorist actions were reauthorised by the president ..... Authorised CIA raids continued at least until 1965." Subsequent operations were different operations according to the quote even if they were similar. My other edits made the structure of the paragraph better. I moved the line "Despite the damage done and civilians killed in the CIA's terrorist attacks, by the measure of its stated objective the project was a complete failure" because it's current placement could give the false impression that the Cubana terrorist attack was by the CIA and the citations are clearly referring to operations in the 60s. GelShick92 (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

There are no misrepresentations in the current text. Your version introduced incoherent sentences such as "The CIA was a major employer Miami in the 1960s, with several thousand agents in the agencies payroll." when there was no identified need to alter the sentence already in the article, which was coherent and properly reflected the sources: "The operation was so extensive that it housed the largest number of CIA officers outside of Langley. It was a major employer in Florida, with several thousand agents in clandestine pay of the agency." You claim that the quotes in the citations make it clear that Operation Mongoose itself employed 400 at the station whereas the reference to thousands on the payroll refers to people on the payroll of the CIA in general in Miami. yet the quote says "Through the 1960s, the private University of Miami had the largest Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) station in the world, outside of the organization's headquarters in Virginia. With perhaps as many as twelve thousand Cubans in Miami on its payroll at one point in the early 1960s, the CIA was one of the largest employers in the state of Florida. It supported what was described as the third largest navy in the world and over fifty front businesses: CIA boat shops, gun shops, travel agencies, detective agencies, and real estate agencies". I've added a clause with the number of CIA officers in. The source is not saying what you think it does. The four hundred figure refers to CIA *officers* i.e. permanent employees who recruit and run agents. The twelve thousand figure refers to *agents* who were working for the Cuban Project/Operation Mongoose and being "run" by the four hundred officers.
The sentence "Operation Mongoose was discontinued in early 1963" was removed because this section is about all the CIA activities in Cuba during this period. It is not about activities under one specific codeword, and it discusses the operations beyond the limited scope of one short-lived Mongoose codeword. Your version "Operation Mongoose formally stopped in early 1963. Attacks in Cuba continued until 1965." gives the false impression that the operation was ended in 1963. This is the opposite of what the source states: "While Operation Mongoose was discontinued early in 1963, terrorist actions were reauthorised by the president. In October 1963, 13 major CIA actions against Cuba were approved for the next two months alone, including the sabotage of an electric power plant, a sugar mill and an oil refinery. Authorised CIA raids continued at least until 1965. So the operation under one specific codeword ended but the CIA attacks that are the subject of this section continued. Your change was not an accurate or proper reflection of that source.
I've added a paragraph break to separate off the concluding sentence. The source says "Operation Mongoose and various other terrorist operations caused property damage and injured and killed Cubans. But they failed to achieve their goal of regime change." There is no indication it is exclusively discussing operations in the 1960s (and this is apparent from the full source). As is made clear in another source cited, "One of Nixon's first acts in office in 1969 was to direct the CIA to intensify covert operations against Cuba", so the notion that this is exclusively about the early 1960s operations is unsupported. Cambial foliage❧ 04:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

2600:1700:5E28:830:50D6:F138:431C:E77A (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Royale Commander Patrick D Bridges

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Mission Centers

I'm proposing to update the Organization section of this article to reflect the changes made by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. While the Directorates of Analysis and Operations still exist as discrete organizations, CIA ops and analysis have been essentially combined into "Mission Centers," organized similarly to previously stood up centers covering counterterrorism, narcotics/crime, counterintelligence. This is groundbreaking and is conspicuously absent from the article. Several open sources available to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbarragan (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Killer Mike - Reagan

Add the CIA connection?

The song "Reagan" explains how US President Ronald Regan lied to the American public. It also mentions how the Central Intelligence Agency and Oliver North looked the other way when terrorists shipped in narcotics to inner city American cities, causing the Crack epidemic in the United States, as revealed by journalist Gary Webb.

CIA employees have been caught before editing Wikipedia. Now I am sure the CIA contracts it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:810C:7751:2D5E:5DAB:1ACE:9199 (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn’t clear what you want, but song lyrics aren’t a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

CIA employees have been caught editing wikipedia

killer Mike - Reagan (song) - the United States CIA created the African American drug plague in the 1990s - Gary Webb Why is this not included or linked to in the article? 10:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiet2 (talk • contribs)

See above reply from Acroterion. - wolf 15:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

X many controversies, both home and abroad.

Y many controversies, both home and abroad, such as unethical human psychological and sexual abuse experimentation, mass surveillance attempts, drug and human trafficking, corporate interest, corruption, prostitution scandals, and cruelty. 141.89.251.245 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
This appears unhelpful. Per WP:TPO, I've left it in place. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

JFK

Interesting that no mention is made at all in the history of Allen Dulles and the CIA’s connections to JFK’s assassination 73.94.11.246 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Source No. 9 Clearly Does Not Say What The Article Says It Says

I apologise for my advocacy for “vandalism,” but the claim that the CIA’s domestic intelligence gathering is “merely limited” is not at all mentioned in Source 9. Source 9 is a discussion of various proposed classifying procedures, not at all mentioning how much classified information may regard domestic intelligence gathering or really including any discussion of d.i. gathering whatsoever. Not at all a good source to prove that claim, which is up front and center at the beginning of the article’s second paragraph. I’m not attempting to disprove the claim, but it certainly isn’t proven by its listed source.

Additionally, perhaps the mention of “training in torture” later in the paragraph shouldn’t be wedged in between “coordination” and “tech support” as if it is at all as normal as those two other things. Just a thought. Personally, I like to end a sentence with a good hook to keep the reader engaged, and if “training in torture” doesn’t make you want to read past a period, I don’t know what would. 96.38.98.152 (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done the two sentences with refs #9 & #10 are not supported by those sources and have been tagged as "failed verification". I don't time right now to do more. I also have no comment on the remaining items in the OP. - wolf 17:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Add new information on the drone use policy

{{Edit semi-protected}}

In the section Central Intelligence Agency#Drones, I propose to:

  1. mention that Obama implemented the policy in 2013 and that it does not apply for active war zones
  2. add the re-implementation of the policy by Biden.

Draft: "A new policy introduced by President Barack Obama in 2013 removed the authority of the CIA to launch drone attacks away from active war zones and allowed these attacks only under Department of Defense command. This change was reversed by President Donald Trump, who authorized CIA drone strikes on suspected terrorists. President Biden restored the restrictions, requiring his approval to add suspected terrorists to a kill list."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/07/us/politics/drone-strikes-biden-trump.html 2A02:85F:E058:3D68:F9BD:C146:9885:87D1 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency/Archive_11&oldid=1148268274"