Still concerned about balance 

I've put in a fair bit of time on the article, both in verifying/cleaning content and filling in material, enough that I think I can say I have gone over things in detail.

Look, for example, at Korea and the Caribbean/Cuba/Cuban missile crisis; those are a start on what I think is encyclopedic coverage. Just to say, with no other background, that the CIA trained police or set up an Operation Gladio network really doesn't give information; I'd recommend waiting for more background and context.

There are news reports from reputable journalists, but there are also quite a number from activists for varying positions. I'm afraid I don't give equal credit to a staff writer for the Washington Post and for the Revolutionary Worker.

The article is impossibly long, yet its covert operations section is full of fragments. It's going to have to break up so those fragmentary sections can be edited; it's taking a long time to save the file now.  Note that I was able to put estimative/analytic material in for Korea and Cuba. Much data of that sort is available, often in the form of the actual declassified documents. Not to put in relevant reports, National Intelligence Estimates, etc., gives the impression that the agency is purely covert operations, since the reports were almost never mentioned for countries I sawjust controversial "dirty tricks". That's not NPOV.

Many sources are available for the report literature, including the George Washington University National Security Archives, the Avalon Project at Yale, the archives at Mount Holyoke, the military staff colleges and research institutes, the Foreign Relations of the United States series, and even the CIA FOIA Reading Room. There is, for example, a huge amount of reporting about Southeast Asia, including strong disagreements among the CIA, military, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and White House (Sam Adams' book, War of Numbers is excellent, but also see the Pentagon Papers).

I'd like to suggest that people editing this look at some of my articles on the process of intelligence, which may help understand things that aren't just covert destabilization. Start with Intelligence cycle management, which will take you through a hierarchy of articles. The HUMINT sections do deal with clandestine rather than covert activity; I'm actively working on them. The article on Clandestine HUMINT and Covert Action is particularly relevant both in history, and balance between clandestine and covert activities. Especially in WWII, there was often a conflict between operations and intelligence gathering. 

Please let me help, but understand that my reaction is that things come across as very accusatory and unbalanced. Believe me, I am very aware of both improprieties and just plain incompetence in intelligence agencies, and they need to be brought out  but in an encylopedic, not fragmentary and accusatory way.