Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 1

message: This section includes very non-npov language, such as the following line: "Once the CIA will cease to be so arrogant and "unilaterally minded" towards their international counterparts, it will be slightly easier to install a climate of trust and, for instance, to fight "terrorism" for real."
Whether we think the CIA is arrogant or not, this has no place on Wikipedia.  This section needs a lot of work, but I'm not qualified to do it.
Brbigam 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-neutral point of view in "Relationship with other agencies"

message: I have removed the following statements from the section labeled "Other":
:Because of its blunders, some people think that a better meaning for the acronym CIA is caught in the act.
:In the movie The Hunt for Red October there's a line that says: "Central Intelligence Agency - now that's a contradiction in terms"
They are clearly POV and have no place in a serious encyclopedia.  Taco Deposit 21:12, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
::I disagree on the quote from The Hunt for Red October. It's from a book/movie that largely portrays the agency in a positive light, and is written by a fan of the agency. You could put the quote back, along with something along the lines about the theory that the CIA likes people thinking they're inept, because then they don't expect the successes, many of which are probably still secret, and they've had some spectacular ones that are public, but not well publicized. -Joseph 01:26, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
The CIA is one of "the initials", or "Three Letter Agencies". The CIA is a spy agency that theoretically has no jurisdiction in the U.S., although they're so secretive no one could tell anyway. A common group in conspiracy theories. Some people think the CIA shot JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many other important people in the latter half of this century. Its motto is "...and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." John 8:32, a fact not pointed out in its web site. 
Creepy, when you think about it.... (unsigned, undated)
:This is one of the sections that is making this article so chaotic.  Either we need to do something about it now, or wait for the general organization of the general article to get cleaned up first... Either way, the information contained is not as high priority, just random tidbits that will need to be dealt with eventually. Akrabbim 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other" Section 

message: I have reverted the article to a recent stable version, after a large number of recent edits have turned much of this article into a rant unsupported by cites. Please, if you want to add controversial claims, back them up with independent, verifiable citations. If you do so, they are more likely to stay in the article. -- The Anome 09:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The cites are the specific names & dates included, which can easily be searched for on the internet. Much of the information was from the news or is general information. The theory about the CIA and drugs is everywhere - on TV as well as the 'net. It wouldn't take you long to find this stuff on news sites.
Well then, you won't have any problem finding specific and verifiable cites? (For example, a reference to a news source or book, with dates, page numbers etc. so someone else can check it.) For example, the stuff about releasing prisoners early and making them informers, that would be good for a start. It might be useful to note here that Steven Seagal films are fictional, and not useful as citation material. -- The Anome 10:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Anonymous User, The Anome expanded upon the point I was trying to express to you.  The burden is upon you, as the person adding the material, to do the research and cite sources, not on us, as your co-editors, nor on the readers. -Joseph (Talk) 11:11, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
If you want to see how to do it, see the GWU National Security Archive at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/index.html -- a site that is very critical of the CIA, but bases its criticism on verifiable sources, many of which are declassified old CIA documents, or recently revealed FOIA documents. -- The Anome 12:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of article to stable version 

message: Here are what I see as the most glaring ommissions in his article.  I've contributed alot to this article over the years, and I hope to tackle these.  But please feel free to do it yourself.
1) more info about the *fleet* of Predator Drones
2) some mention of the church committee
3) some mention of Operation Mongoose
4) some mention of Operation Phoenix
it's tempting to speculate about Bush's ongoing intelligence shake-up, but I think It's too early, and I'm not qualified.
xhris
:There is no "fleet" of predators, they are borrowed from the USAFDrew1369 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs... 

message: Any info on covert terrorist CIA activities, or its '100,000 serious crimes' committed annually? Some fairness and balance would be nice. -St|eve 04:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a congressional commitee report. glocks out 20:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: By looking at the first few lines of the article, I still couldn't answer the question "what is or was the purpose of the CIA"?  The article provides a clear summary of what the organization does; but after the hooplah about its past performance and the chaos it caused in the world, still not clear of its purpose. |_|> Ariele 18:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: "In 1965, the President of Indonesia, Sukarno was ousted in a coup d'état supported by the CIA, led by Suharto. The overthrow of Sukarno by the CIA and Suharto resulted in a nationwide purge of some 500,000 suspected Communists, most of whom were peasants. The CIA secretly supplied Suharto's troops with a field communications network. Flown in at night by US Air Force planes from the Philippines, this was state-of-the-art equipment, whose frequencies were known to the CIA and the National Security Agency. Not only did this technology allow Suharto's generals to coordinate the killings, it also meant that the highest echelons of the US administration were listening in. Suharto was able to seal off large areas of the country."
::Interesting, but could you please document your source? Travb 03:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Suharto]]

message: It seems like the Controversies section is getting large, also, I know that these could be expandaded upon, maybe it's time to create a seperate page
CuBiXcRaYfIsH 07:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate Controversies Page 

message: Are there any sources for the CIA operations in Indonesia described in the article? CJK 21:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Indonesia

message: I placed the template because, even after I'd done some tidying (bringing bits of the article into line with the MoS, making usage consistent, etc.) there was still much to do.  The style of the article is also uneven; sometimes it reads like an encyclopædia article, sometimes like a polemic. --Mel Etitis  (??? ??????) 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: I think the organization of this section just need to be revised.  I mean, it mentions the Director last, after everything else.  Just a little structure (pun definitely intended) to this section would help. Akrabbim 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure cleanup 

message: There have been repeated changes in the wording of that section by User:205.134.16.55.
# ... of shifting the focus of investigations from why these illegal prisons exist to how information of them was leaked to the public.  - removed illegal
# Waterboarding is regarded widely as a form of torture  - changed to is regarded by some as a
I will revert those edits until he tells us why they make the article better. Lars T. 22:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would they be legal (if they exist)? Lars T. 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not my obligation to bring up a source for something I never presented as a quote; if anything it is your's to show that it is not a quote, if you want that word cut. Lars T. 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Which brings us to the "shifting the focus of investigations from why these (illegal) prisons exist to how information of them was leaked to the public." How can they not exist if people complain that the information was leaked? My "if they exist" was hypothetical. Lars T. 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Now all you have to prove is that the CIA didn't break any laws in the countries where these "nonexistent" prisons are, I doubt that in most (if any) of them it is legal for foreign agencies to have prisons. Lars T. 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "By some" is fuzzy advocacy language too. Lars T. 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The US military would never do anything like subject its personnel to radiation either, right? Maybe would should ask you again after a little waterboarding. Lars T. 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes /* Secret CIA prisons */ 

message: CJK deleted this sentence:
"There have also been allgations that CIA was responsible for starting the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia in an attempt to destabilize the heart of Europe."
I agree with the deletion, it makes all of the rest of the article look foolish and like a conspiracy theory.
Who alleged?  These are weasel words.  
Based on what evidence? 
Some former Soviets blame America for the Soviet collapse, but simply because a handful of people allege this, with no evidence, does not make it true.Travb 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Justifiable deletions by CJK about CIA's role in Yugoslavia

message: WAS ABBIE HOFFMAN ASSASSINATED BY THE CIA? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.137.195 (talk • contribs) .
The place to ask is at Abbie Hoffman, and I quote: 
Hoffman suffered from bipolar disorder (Jezer, 1993), and was found dead on April 12, 1989 at the age of 52. His death was recorded as a suicide, possibly connected to the news that his elderly mother had been diagnosed with cancer.Travb 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ABBIE HOFFMAN

message: ===Highly-illegal activities===
The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Staff Study, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress: 
"A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the U.S. but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself.  In other words, a typical 28 year old, GS-11 case officer has numerous opportunities every week, by poor tradecraft or inattention, to embarrass his country and President and to get agents imprisoned or executed. Considering these facts and recent history, which has shown that the DCI, whether he wants to or not, is held accountable for overseeing the CS, the DCI must work closely with the Director of the CS and hold him fully and directly responsible to him."

To keep this second paragraph in, someone needs to source it.  Who said this?  If it is some wikipedians opinion, it is POV.  
The quote is from a Congressional report, which compiled information from experts and spent hundreds of hours of time investigating the CIA.
This thorough investigation is then followed by a wikipedians unsourced opinion, attempting to temper and lessen the findings of the congressional committee. Very unencyclopedic.
The bold text is particuarly POV.  Rewriting this paragraph is not enough--if it is unsourced, it is unencylopedic standing next to a US congressional report.
The hard fact is that Congress found that:
"A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the U.S. but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself."
No amount of spin or wishful thinking about America's role in the world from wikipedian US apologists will change this hard fact. 
I suggest finding a Congressional report which contradicts this--no one can, because none exists.  
Again, the fact is that the CIA "engage in highly illegal activities", "easily 100,000 times a year".  Travb 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current edit of: Highly-illegal activities

message: Travb, I was confused by the comments on the  edit summary ... were they addressed at me?
I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'm grateful for any suggestions. Kaid100 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No sir, another wikiuser who I talked too on their talk page. I was refering to deleted online articles. Travb 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok no probs... thanks for the clarification sir :) Kaid100 19:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Ok, told me to check the talk...there's nothing here on it. It can't be considered assassination: zawahiri is a named enemy combatant. Killing him with an airstrike is the same as killing any other enemy combatant with an air strike. It's an act of war, not an act of assassination. This is well established by military precedent, in many other countries than the us: Israel, Russia, UK, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give me sometime to write, please see below. Since i have quoted two news sources which clearly call an attempt on the terrorist's life an assassination, please provide a refence that states that it somehow is not an assassination.  I think there is some confusion about what the definition of an assassination is.Travb 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  assassination and zawahiri 

message: I am going to delete the entire CIA Operation History section for lack of sources. Thank you and have a nice day.68.14.84.43 20:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that there are several references within the block you removed, along with a large body of discussion above.  You can challenge the references, or mark the places that feel need additional support.  I'm not seeing a consensus to the remove the entire section.  Additionally, please use edit summaries when you remove a lot of text like that; even if you simply refer to the talk page.  Thanks. Kuru talk 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least the anon mentioned what he was doing on the talk page, most people don't.  I agree with User:Kuru, the section the anon deleted although not sourced as much as I would like, it is still referenced enough to avoid a large deletion.  (see the Central_Intelligence_Agency#Declassified_CIA_manuals and Central_Intelligence_Agency#Drug_trafficking sections which I rewrote recently for a heavily referenced section) Travb 04:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting

message: I removed a sentence or two from the the 'Developing nations' section. My rationale is that one sentence attempted to show how the CIA action to reinstate the Shah led to the Iranian revolution. Firstly, the connection is debatable, but more importantly seems to be out of the scope of the article. I also removed some uncited conjecture on what might have been if the CIA didn't perform the action. Ashmoo 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long term effects of CIA Operations

message: The budget is listed as "classified", but surely there is some think tank that has an estimate available?    An article yesterday from the Washington Post indicates the combined national intelligence budget is $44 billion annually; so I'm  guessing CIA is 1/4 to 1/3 of that, but surely there are better guessers out there than I ... and it would not be inappropriate to include a good guess or range of guesses in this article. Based on the budget, I'm guessing about 90 thousand employees, right? linas 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget? 

message: What are all those little yellow locks for which are scattered throughout the article? It's pollutive and should be removed. This does not belong in an encyclopaedia, except if it's for a real good reason... Someone explain? Scotteh 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the world are you taking about? Travb (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, see the "organizational chart" link under Central_Intelligence_Agency#Structure.  The "yellow lock" tells you that the linked page is an https (secure) link, rather than an http.  These links don't bother me, however it might be worth converting all the links (https and http) into proper references. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CIA Organizational Chart  I don't see anything with the color yellow. I have converted many of the links using the ref tags.  If someone else wants to take the initiative, here is the proper way to source the documents, just cut and paste these templates, for book, journal, or web page.  :
 		
 		
   		
   
 
albiet, I am well aware that 99% of the time that asking someone else to do something on a talk page is a waste of time... 
Signed: Travb (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: CIA Organizational Chart The little lock thingy is yellow... But maybe it depends on what browser you are using or what your settings are. But nevermind now I understand the situation here. Scotteh 14:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using internet explorer, how about you? Travb (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mozilla Firefox --Scotteh 10:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep on Mozilla Firefox, i see them too. Travb (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's HTTP over SSL, or HTTPS. DolphinCompSci 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?