Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 10

Citation for CIA reports to ODNI
The first paragraph says "citation needed" for the CIA reporting to ODNI, this information is available here:

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/faq

Click on the PDF icon to get it. Look under "Is the ODNI part of the CIA." I would add this to the article myself but the code to add citations is hopelessly complex. Massysett (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Change in leadership
It was claimed today that Gen Petraeus would step down due to an extramarital affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.105.81 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "claim" to it. It's a fact, already done, covered by most major news outlets. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Useless Citation?
Why is citation 20 (http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/) in this article? How is it useful, and how does it apply to the sentence it is attached to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.35.150 (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * it does sort of look like spam NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

✅ Obvious spam, and now removed. Thank you for pointing it out, and I apologise that nobody removed it more quickly after you posted here. Begoon &thinsp; talk 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Echelon, Electronic Surveillance Project
What about Echelon, Electronic Surveillance Project, shouldn't it be in the article as well? 46.9.42.58 (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a NSA program, not CIA. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

CIA flag?
Does the CIA have an official flag? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Never mind, found it. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Converging Military and Intelligence Activities
I reverted the new section with this title. The added info concerns me. The entire section is based on a single source, a research paper written by a scholar of unknown notability. I can't even tell if it was actually published in the journal or not, but this 91 page document surely didn't all appear on page 539 as the citation would have us believe. I'd like to see some discussion on this before putting in a whole section based on one author that makes some claims not easily found in the source. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I am still trying to figure out the "do's and dont's," so to speak. I'm sorry if you were unable to locate the quotes in the page numbers I provided. I assure you they came from the document, but I may have made mistakes when I was coding. The concern you raise regarding my contribution emanating from a single source is fair. I will definitely have a more diverse array of sources for future posts. Cheers Timothysandole (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you looked at the sources the author used in the paper? That might give you some diversity. Also, please be mindful of WP:COPYVIO. I haven't done a close comparison, but it's a common error among new editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

History - Origins
Prior language used in this article indicated the CIA "descended" from the wartime OSS; such language overstates the case.

The OSS came into existence during a hot war and was primarily concerned with inserting agents for activities behind enemy lines as well as gathering intelligence about those enemies. Quoting the Wikipedia OSS article specifically on that office's founding,


 * The Office of Strategic Services was established by a Presidential military order issued by President Roosevelt on June 13, 1942, to collect and analyze strategic information required by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to conduct special operations not assigned to other agencies. During the War, the OSS supplied policy makers with facts and estimates, but the OSS never had jurisdiction over all foreign intelligence activities.

The OSS did not morph into the CIA; it had evaporated by end of the year in which the Allies won World War II and hostilities came to a close, 1945.

The CIA was created anew subsequently in 1947 by formal, specific Congressional legislation, The National Security Act of 1947. That Act specifically charged the CIA with being the head of all US intelligence and created a much more powerful, diverse, complicated and independent agency than the OSS ever was, active in many countries with whom we are not formally at war and in many non-military ways. While I think this distinction is reflected in this article's introduction, that distinction was lost somewhat in the "History" section wherein the CIA was labeled as the OSS's descendant; I have changed that characterization to make it more consistent with the introductory language i.e. while the CIA did succeed the OSS temporally and has tended to attempt to bask in that entity's glory, the CIA was not a direct descendant of the OSS - it was (and is) a different (and eminently less successful) animal. BLZebubba (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

CIA and NYPD cooperation
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Devereaux, Ryan. "Fresh questions for NYPD as CIA collaboration revealed in new report." The Guardian. June 27, 2013.

To Work And Serve for CIA.
Hi, What are the criteria for entering CIA?

115.114.44.11 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Lalit ,New delhi, India 06/08/13
 * The answer is found on their website. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Department of Plans
It currently reads "Also in 1952, United States Army Special Forces were created, with some missions overlapping those of the Department of Plans". What is that? Vandalism or a mistype perhaps? 184.46.54.187 (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran"
I feel this could be included in the history section: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran. Published in Foreign Policy (magazine) by Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid, Aug 26 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.11.152 (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"black budget" vs actual intelligence budget
I have removed the recently-added budget info from the introduction because it erroneously compared the CIA's share in the actual intelligence budget of the 1990s to the CIA's share in the National Intelligence Program budget, which is only one large part of the intelligence budget. So CIA's share of these funds is not same as CIA's share of the intelligence budget.--Sdverv (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Here's the transcript from the Appropriations Subcommittee that originally inadvertently disclosed 1995 NIP budget figures in 1994; the numbers don't match the Washington Post reporting. Although the news report says that their numbers are given "in 2012 dollars", the ratio should still be the same, but it is not. Do you have a different source? Please don't make any changes until these discrepancies are ironed out.--Sdverv (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions on CIA?
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the article discusses restrictions on the CIA's activities. I think there should be a section on the legal scope of its activities upon creation, the restrictions put on it in the aftermath of Watergate, the loosening of restrictions post-9/11, etc. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Prism will throw more light. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.141.6 (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Emergency
je m,exprime en francais due que j,ai etait operer du cerveau est d,autre parties du corp humain je suis sur le nom de el kadi prenom karim resident pour le moment a tafersite bouhidous maroc est normalement je suis des etats-unis texas pouvais vous m,aidais merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.143.150.23 (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ex-official: Cia Helped Jail Mandela"
I feel this could be included in the history section: Ex-official: Cia Helped Jail Mandela. --88.68.191.214 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's by the Chicago Tribune. June 10, 1990. By Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel, Cox News Service. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely should be included, no mention in Nelson Mandela's page either, thank you for bringing to notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwan07 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Seperate section on ASSASSINATION attempts
Does anyone else think that the article needs a separate topic focusing solely on the Assassination attempts(failed and successful) made by the CIA? My concerns are as follows: Depending on the consensus, i'll start working on a sub section. Thank you dhiv   talk  05:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article does not mention CIA's role in the assassination of Che Guevara
 * The article's mention of multiple assassination attempts on the life of Fidel Castro makes it sound like it's no big deal. The issue has been severely downplayed
 * CIA efforts to overthrow Fidel Castro's regime needs a separate sub section as well
 * Claims to CIA involvement in the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira. Role in the Rwandan Genocide
 * Alleged plot to kill Hugo Chavez
 * Also worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia are the wikileaks related CIA documents


 * Why not make a seperate article? KingHiggins (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency
I've created a new article about the Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good going! Do you have a copy of the book? Can you check if the book covers assassination attempts and coups staged by the CIA because i'm researching on the topic. Very hard to find reliable sources on the subject. Thanks in advance :) dhiv   talk  11:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead needs to Briefly Explain Controversy
As per WP:LEAD:
 * The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies

Can somebody involved with the article please explain what the rationale is for not including this? KingHiggins (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be any reason judging by the response, I will go ahead and put forward an edit. KingHiggins (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Go on, just be careful not to start a edit war lol dhiv   talk  04:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, I could not find an official CIA response to some of the allegation but that could be useful aswell. KingHiggins (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work! I'll add the enhanced interrogation techniques as well dhiv   talk  04:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of employees
To me it seems stupid to have the number of employees Classified as I think the public has the right to know and I see no reason why it has to be classified. I can see why the annual budget is classified, as I don't think the people don't need to know that, but come on what would it hurt to reveal how many employees you have? Sk8terguy27 Talk  23:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum to discuss why. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only. When someone is working against U.S. CIA simply gets Viell (more than durchschnitlich) a pitch. Thus, the door which, gründsätzlich, should be worn automatically is suddenly not good enough closed, they unbeckante person they see all over aschend whether probably did not happen's, etc. Or, they come to an excessive happiness. So, how to Barack Obama suddenly become a President!80.201.244.122 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Translation needed for last comments, which appear to have no reason to be in this section. David J Johnson (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Torture report
Is the 'torture report' (see news articles ad nauseum) the Panetta Review or does it exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? I can't believe an article hasn't been created yet. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started a clumsily named article on the report. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely you could invoke COMMONNAME to name the article "CIA torture report?" The CIA is not a living person, after all.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've moved it. Waiting for official report name. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Rather than wholesale criticism of the article, without any consensus, could I respectfully suggest that you improve your editing history and concentrate on producing a User page - so that the community may know a little more about you? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * An ad hominem attack? Stay classy pal.  As for the article, the only reason I can see for someone arguing that it's coverage per article quality guidelines is comprehensive would be as a joke.  You're welcome to try though.  I'm holding a book that covers just 60 years of the history of the CIA, and it comes to 702 pages.  The article's history covering '53 to '66 comes to 4 short paragraphs.  I'm sorry if I believe that that could be improved upon.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what to do with the purpose section?
Right now, the first part of it is repeated in the history section, so the only part I would think might be relevant is the priorities list, but even that has probably changed by now. I think the whole section could be redundant.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title of this section just for aesthetic reasons. I think the "purpose" part of the history be dropped; it's better for the weighting that way. "Purpose" is a valid section, after all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Okay, I've cleaned out a lot of stuff from "Organization," for starters. If anybody disagrees with specific removals, I'm happy to discuss it. Some stuff was unnecessary; other stuff just out of place. It can be readded to the appropriate place, the info itself is there in the history. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be at about 113kb of prose right now, I wouldn't call it a desperate emergency. The wiki policy on content removal is pretty strict, basically it seems to say that you have to move everything that's relevant to a different article.  The article certainly could use some help, but I don't think size is the most important issue right now.  I'd like to see a new article created covering reports and committees generally to try to fix or improve the CIA, as well as abuse investigations.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. It needs to be removed if its sourced and non-redundant; if its unsourced, or just repeating stuff, we can throw it out with no issues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is far too long to read comfortably (122kb prose), so it is a serious issue WP:SIZERULE. The History and Controversies sections are particularly long. Each of their subsections should probably be condensed to a single paragraph where possible, especially for subsections which have their own main article - with a hope to bring the article down to ~75kb (A huge subject like World War II manages to be 78kb). Also, the style of writing is often either somewhat florid, clumsy, or grammatically complex.
 * Alternatively, there seems to be plenty of information to create separate History and Controversies articles. ( Hohum  @ ) 10:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been mulling over this, wondering what the best possible shakeup would be. We could create a "History of the CIA" article; alternatively, we could use the existing "CIA activities in [insert region here]" articles. The prose is rather poor, and could do with a lot of tightening up. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There should certainly be an article about the history of the cia. The section on the president's order to eliminate the leader of the Congo should be longer than 5 short sentences, for instance.  The section on the CIA support for the resistance to the soviet occupation of afghanistan should be longer than 2 sentences.  My point is that the history section, while parts are long and could probably be shortened, is already at the summary of summaries stage.  So 6 sections on the organization, or the 2 sentences on the soviet invasion of afghanistan, or the 2 sentences on afghanistan vs what year the CIA created it's first training center, or a section based on the quote of Robert Baer about employee polygraphing.  There's a dedicated article on extraordinary rendition, so maybe we could turn that section into a summary.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Splitting the article seemed to be a good thing to do, as per WP:SIZERULE, and there was a rough consensus above at the Size section to do something, so I performed a bold spinout. Since the content in the history section was restored, the article is now back at 185,495 bytes, and the content still exists at the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article. I recommend whatever consensus hopefully arises here about dealing with the overly long length of this article. I also strongly recommend, at least for the time being, changing the History section in this article back to a summary, because of the duplicity of content that presently exists. However, since this was reverted, and in the sincere interest of avoiding edit warring, I'll go along with whatever overall consensus hopefully emerges here. North America1000 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging Hohum as the only other editor to have weighed in. Thoughts? My personal take is that we can eliminate a lot of the less prominent activities of the CIA, and keep the ones that have received the most coverage, which is easily checked using scholarly search functions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said here and in a section on this talk page dedicated to the issue, two of the regional articles have been turned into re-directs that point to this page. The asia region page and the near east, N. Africa, s. & sw asia region pages.  The prose size is roughly 108kb.  If someone comes along with a good, comprehensive, concise summary of the history of the CIA, that's great.  I would imagine that it would touch on the cold war, on how the CIA supported different overarching strategies, e.g. containment, etc, and then touch on the rise of terrorism.  Anyone here wants to write that, fantastic.  But, I think an approach that we can all agree on, is that an effort is made on this page that, in addition to a summary of the history of the CIA that will be a long term goal, let's pen that in for next friday at 4, I suggest that summaries be made for the CIA under different presidents.  Doing that piece by piece seems like a manageable, realistic way of getting the prose size of the article under 100kb.  I think that should address the concern about size.  This article should at least have, for instance, something on the bay of pigs.  Then, if there's going to be a history of the CIA article, it too would have another summary, and then there would be an entire article about the bay of pigs.  That's one way to go, and that seems to fit into the wikipedia model.  But this is going to be a large, time consuming project, touching basically every article about the CIA and coordinating what information goes where.  But there is absolutely no reason for this article to suffer for the sake of expediency.  It would be great if you could just copy and paste a little bit, save changes, and fix everything.  But I think my proposal preserves the quality of this article while addressing the size issue.  I guess smaller parts of history that don't merit their own article will end up in the regional articles.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is already suffering from being difficult to read because it is far too long. It needs about a 25-40% reduction in prose. Many of the sections with their own main articles could be chopped down to a few sentences or a short paragraph. I don't see why the History section can't be split off and a single paragraph left to pitch the highlights. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the article would benefit from having a short history, one paragraph, maybe a few paragraphs, but I'd also like to see some highlights on this page. Highlights of major events during different president's tenures, and, for instance, things like the bay of pigs.  I think that's a goal we can all agree on.  But I don't see how replacing the entire history section with "the cia was founded on..." improves anything at all.  The plan I propose will probably reduce the prose size of the history section by 50% or more.  Some sections will be eliminated, and some sections will be reduced to sentences.  The congo section, for instance could be reduced to a single sentence, or eliminated, probably eliminated.  Chad, the dominican republic, those sections would either be reduced to a single sentence or eliminated.  But it's not as simple as just eliminating, for instance, those sections.  I think we can all agree that there should be a paragraph or two on each presidential administration that serves as the concise coverage of the topic.  Bill Clinton's presidency triggered a shift in the CIA from a focus on political power struggles (for instance) to a focus on human rights abuses, although in the instance of Somalia, that was triggered by his predecessor.  During Clinton's presidency there was also a shift to a focus on terrorism, with the creation (iirc, not sure if the dates coincide) of the CIA's counterterrorism center, as well as the discovery of aldrich ames, who had sold the identities of every contact the CIA had in Russia to the KGB.  It should probably also mention al qaeda and osama bin laden.  I think that would meet, for instance, Hohum's goals of reducing the size of the history section by 25%-40%, it would meet wikipedia guidelines for covering topics like this at several levels.  I think it would address everyone's concerns.  But the changes would have to be coordinated with the other articles, the regional articles, and articles, about, for instance, the '53 iranian coup, or the bay of pigs and so on.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think presidential summaries should be in the history article. This article should focus on now. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would this article about the CIA focus on any one aspect of the CIA? Is that what people visiting the article are looking for?  Do people viewing the article just want to know about what the agency is doing this exact moment?  Should everything else be replaced with bare links to other articles?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been awhile, but not much action has emerged here. As such, I have replaced the lengthy history section with the link to the new article at History of the Central Intelligence Agency and a brief summary. This has significantly reduced the article's length, which is functional as per WP:SIZERULE. We shouldn't have both the history article and its content also replicated on the main CIA page. Of course, the history section in this main article can be expanded with various summarizing information, as has been discussed above. Also of note is that at 111 kilobytes, the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article itself also qualifies for spinouts as per WP:SIZERULE, but it may be better to keep the content of that article all in one place. North America1000 11:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You replaced the entire history section with a redundant statement of when the agency was founded? Why do you insist on breaking policy in numerous ways forcing a no effort fork leaving nothing other than the link and redundant information about when the agency was founded?  What is the need for haste on this?  Why is a prose size of 108kb a crisis?  Why are you performing almost the definition of an unacceptable fork?  What is the urgency that requires immediate action when you replace it not with the required summary, but redundant information about when the agency was founded?  Why do you deliberately ignore the discussion in the talk page, and choose to act without consensus?  Why do I assume that you're one of those people that think that consensus on wikipedia is the result of a vote(my way of reminding you about consensus policy)?TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Butchered the history section to mindlessly appease the gods of expediency. Prose size is now 97kb.TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, users in the discussions above have suggested a spinout article of the history section. There's no haste, it's simple organization per an editing guideline. This does not break policy, it is adherence to a proper guideline. I'll state it again in case you missed it – of course, the history section in this main article can be expanded with various summarizing information, as has been discussed above. This is not a content fork, it's a valid and functional spinoff. I haven't ignored the discussion on this talk page whatsoever. Also, any and all input from all interested Wikipedia editors is certainly welcome. North America1000 13:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * has reverted the spinout for the second time (diff), with the edit summary "Butchering the history section". So, at this time, content in the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article is again duplicated in this article. North America1000 14:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See the thread directly below. Requesting a formal discussion regarding this matter. North America1000 14:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

What the heck's going on?
Why was the subject matter expert needed tag removed, and why was the history section put through a blender? Section headers seem to have little or no relevance to the text contained in said section, and the narrative is shot to kingdom come. In the "intelligence vs action" section that seems to first be about the korean war, which is the section that follows it, isn't about the korean war or about intelligence vs action. It talks about the staffing of the CIA at the time having risen to roughly 1,000 with the context (that the CIA had been gutted to the bone after ww2) stripped away entirely. I haven't gotten further, but I can't say that I'm optimistic. Oh, and Lawrence wasn't the head of the CIG or the CIA. He was the chief counsel.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What the heck is going on is that I'm implementing the consensus reached above, that the history section is far too long. Trimming requires omitting some details, and summarizing necessarily glosses over some intricacies and context. Which is why you have a main article. Besides, the prose that I came to was far from stellar; there were unexplained references and redundancies aplenty, and far far too much detail for the page at this level. You say the "narrative is shot to hell;" well yes, because the previous version was not even chronological, but jumped back and forth. You want to copy edit the version I created, go ahead; don't gripe about the fact that pruning is taking place, since it's obviously necessary, and nobody else was stepping up to do it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the History section needs reduction into a summary format per the consensus that has developed at the discussion above ("Should the history section of Central Intelligence Agency be split to History of the Central Intelligence Agency?") relative to the creation of the History of the Central Intelligence Agency article to address the overly-lengthy state of this article. I also agree with the reorganization of content in the History section of this article into a chronological summary. North America1000 15:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times doe we have to go over this? We ALL support making the article shorter, and making the history section more concise.  Why is it being made worse?  Yes when, for instance, mention of the korean war, and many other historically significant events were added to the history section friction did develop with older sections that purported to cover large parts of the cold war which were left so that they could be worked into a later, better version of the article, but the important thing is making the article better, rather than worse.  Improving coverage by, for instance, giving the korean war a mention.  The gutting of the CIA is important for two reasons, one it's important in it's own right, and secondly, it's important because you reference it ("grown to roughly 1,000 employees").  Also, getting simple facts right is better than getting simple facts wrong.  The point is improving the article by making it more concise, not making it worse.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "sigh" When I edited the article yesterday, I was attempting to make it shorter, not worse. Northamerica1000, for one, seems to think I was having at least some success. The prose that existed before my cuts was awful, and that also needed changing. If you think you can improve on my standards, then by all means do so; there's about 20 more history sections that need pruning, and I do not own any of them. Make a cut that you think is a positive change, and let's take it from there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the topic of awful prose, in your efforts to "improve" the article, how about you keep some casual relationship between a section and the section's title, keep basic factual errors out of your edits, and, if you cut parts out of a narrative, you change the rest of the narrative accordingly. Mindless cutting from an article is not an improvement.  Cutting things and replacing them with factual errors is not an improvement.  Leaving sections a disjointed mess is not an improvement.  Leaving sections mislabeled is not an improvement.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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


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


 * Do it Yes, it should be an article itself. It appears someone was bold enough to do it already but someone didn't approve.  I also see comments above such as "Why the haste?"  It's not about haste, it's the first step.  It appears there's a concensus that it should be split into a new article so instead of stopping progress it may be easier to help fix whatever thing it is you don't like. Lucutious (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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


 * I've started a sort of hybrid AfD / Merger proposal for the individual country "CIA activities in (blank)" articles. The issue there is keeping, deleting, merging, or redirecting those individual country articles, with the target of the merger or redirection to the regional "CIA activities in (blank)" articles. Some material from this article could be spun out to the regional or individual countries articles. The discussions are happening on the regional article talk pages. I'll list and link them in a new section below. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Regional and country "CIA activities in (blank)" articles

 * Talk:CIA activities in the Americas
 * Talk:CIA activities in Africa
 * Talk:CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific
 * Talk:CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
 * Talk:CIA activities in Russia and Europe

I've started discussions on all "CIA activities in (region)" talk pages. They are formally merger proposals for some of the individual country articles into the regional articles. But really it is a hybrid AfD / merger proposal for some of the individual country "CIA activities in (blank)" articles. The discussion should cover keeping, deleting, merging, or redirecting those individual country articles, with the target of the merger or redirection to the regional "CIA activities in (blank)" articles. In addition, some material from this article could be spun out to the regional or individual country articles. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I think it makes sense to go to a continent scheme for the regional articles. Americas stays the same, but the others should be Europe (including Russia), Africa, and Asia. Australia and New Zealand articles currently redirect to the main CIA article, but I would favor redirecting to the Asia article, and either keep "and the Pacific" or not. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The five articles above appear to reflect the CIA's regional structure, so I would leave them that way. I think all the separate country articles should redirect to whatever region they are in. - Location (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to where you got that impression? Sorry if its easy to find or in this article itself, just being lazy. In general, my attempt at debate has attracted very little attention, which means lets go forward with what we've got. I assume you mean all of the individual country articles that I picked out for being particularly weak and leave the single country articles not listed, at least for now. Please do that yourself or respond here and I'll do it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I must be thinking of the six DOS regional bureaus... . The CIA's website notes something different... . Yes, I'm OK with merging only the articles you noted. - Location (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the Analyst division. The Clandestine service's regions are probably classified. See "How the NCS is organized?" on the FAQ. I think continents are the way to go. -- Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I started with CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia, blanking and redirecting Algeria, Burma, Jordan (questionable), Morocco, Sri Lanka, and Tunisia. But keeping Turkey and Yemen. Talk can continue on that regional page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Latin American page is the only one of these that I watch, but it seems to me the general approach here should be to have continent or region based articles, and have country-specific articles in the countries where there is enough coverage of CIA activities to require an article per WP:DUE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think continent is best. That is the approach I'm taking, but I think the policy is Notability. -- Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, notability is the one I was thinking of. Linked the due weight policy out of carelessness :) It's been a long day. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Regional articles
Work is ongoing with the individual countries and regional CIA activities pages. Since the CIA does not publish any geographical operational divisions, I think using the continents makes the most sense. The only divergence I see worth it is to include all non-mainland Asian countries with Australia, naming it "Australia and the Pacific." And keeping Russia in the Europe category and in the article name. If anyone has any objections to changing to continent-based articles, speak up. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk &#124; stalk 15:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All blanking/redirecting of the stub/non-notable individual CIA activities in ____ is done. Regional articles are cleaned up, but still need a lot of work. Before that however, I will wait to see if there is any objection to continent reorganization. The previous organization was incorrectly done according to CIA analysis divisions, not operations. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk &#124; stalk 17:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One problem I foresee is that there is a lot of material pertaining to the CIA's Near East Division and it is unclear how material pertaining to that would find a home in the proposed re-categorization. For example, this link indicates that NE Division spans multiple continents. A similar issue may arise with material about the Soviet Union and Russia. - Location (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a problem. The internal organization of the National Clandestine Service is 1) classified, 2) uses both geography and subject matter, and 3) doesn't impact the Wikipedia articles' organization in any way. The classification means it is practically impossible to mimic, I note your source above covers "by 1957." For the wiki articles, there will never be any material in the regional articles that covers personnel, org charts, or internal discussions of the NCS. The only criteria I think we need to keep in mind is pragmatic - what is the most useful organization? I think continents are the best answer. As for CIA activities in the Soviet Union, I think it could be an exception to the continent organization. I would not put it in the continent structure at all, but list "Soviet Union" in the templates next to the continents. It is a sufficiently significant topic in its own right, is purely historical, and the many Asian SSR's makes it more significantly trans-continental. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 13:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that there was/is a Near East Division is not beyond the realm of reliable sources. Let's say I want to insert material that states "Tom Twetten was placed in charge of the CIA's Near East Division in 1983." Would that go under Africa or Asia? What about material pertaining to Russia? Does that mean the CIA template and Category:Overseas CIA activities by region would note "North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and the Pacific, Soviet Union, and Russia"? For our purposes, I think the DoS regions would work better. - Location (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's beyond what we have right now and I would claim could ever expect to have. However, if your hypothetical came to pass, it could go in both articles. Yes, but I would keep the current "Russia and Europe" and the "Americas" articles. The only changes I propose are to move North Africa into the Africa article, consolidate mainland Asia, and add Australia and the Pacific. I'm not going to insist on this reorg, so I would appreciate if other editors shared their opinions. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 02:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong preferences or strong objections to what you have suggested. I'm curious to what others might suggest, too. - Location (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone else is going to weigh in, so I'm going to go forward with continent reorganization. Remember this mainly affects the current Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia article, which is a handful of a name and doesn't provide clear borders of the region. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it. - Location (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I finished and I think I cleaned up the loose ends, but please click around to check. One remaining change I would suggest is to elevate the Soviet Union to an article listed with the continents. The title in the template is actually Geographic activities, so that would still fit. And it makes more sense than putting the Soviet Union article within the Russia and Europe article. Thoughts? - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 22:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There was an issue because CIA activities in Australia and the Pacific didn't have any material after the reorg. I didn't realize the Australia and New Zealand articles were redirects to CIA. So they are back to CIA redirects now and the continent article is deleted. One downside is that the deleted history and talk page are from when the article was named "CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific". That article before the reorg included Asia besides the Middle East, South and Southwest Asia, and Russia (Soviet Union). The article wasn't much good, but it might be useful to preserve the history. So if anyone things so and knows how/has the access to do it, go for it.
 * The new Asia article could be renamed Asia and the Pacific and really mean it, but it probably isn't worth bothering at this point. Other that this, the process worked pretty well and I do intend to work to improve these articles at some point, but please jump right in if you want to. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 03:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A general cleanup project, I need help!
Hi, everybody. First off, I apologize for pushing through a host of edits all at once. That always feels like bad form to me. Anyway:

I've been trying primarily to clean up this article, but I've also been trying to shorten it. I am not trying to research the content of the article, nor am I really interested in the history of the CIA, or anything like that, so I'm definitely Not That Guy (tm). I'm basically trying to bring a flavour of consistency to it, and if errors crop up (which I do not expect) I herein apologize.

Two minor concerns, because I'm unable to find the wikipedia-centric article I need, and I'll just directly and briefly ask:

US or U.S.?

Communist or communist?

Thanks everyone. I'll be working hard on this article for a while. Questions/comments outside of what's already on this talk page are always welcome. Thanks! :) Dystopiansatire (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
The section on the Iranian coup leads with a link to Mohammad Mosaddegh, but thereafter refers to him as "Mossadeq", which I assume is just a different transliteration, though it's not listed on his WP page. In the interest of keeping things consistent, I think the Mossadeqs should be changed to Mosaddeghs. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, the link (under Nixon) to Plumbers should probably be to Plumbers. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oddly, I was just doing that. (The Mossadegh thing, I meant.) Dystopiansatire (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

7.30 Neptune Spears
Some open critics about the Obama Administration about the U.S. Navy SEAL team 6 : the Brainwashed "Fruits and Vegetables" SEALs on Bojack Horseman Season 1 episode 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcarter44 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Central Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110509025244/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/8301-503543_162-20060479-503543.html? to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20060479-503543.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Defining rendition
In the lead section, an editor has recently sought to define "extraordinary rendition" as (the extrajudicial abduction and transfer of a suspect to a foreign government), citing WP:MOSINTRO. I'm thinking this might be somewhat of a controversial description, and suggested it be discussed here. Does "extraordinary rendition" need a definition (of any kind) in the lead? It's already linked in the lead and it's mentioned more than a dozen times in the article, including as a title of it's own sub-subsection where it is described and discussed. I'm thinking this is sufficient, but if there is consensus to add a definition for the term in the lead, then perhaps we can come up with something more neutral and less buzz-wordy? Discuss. - the WOLF  child  14:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The guidelines in WP:MOSINTRO state that a blue link on an uncommon term is not enough. Uncommon terms in the lead should be briefly defined in the lead. The rationale for this requirement is that a lead section should be a standalone introduction to the topic. Here is the definition from Extraordinary rendition, which has a reference: "the government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another."

OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the first question is; is "extraordinary rendition" uncommon enough to warrant a definition in the lead? And considering the linking and extensive coverage that follows within the article, would an added definition be overkill? Also, if it's determined that a definition is needed, is this the one we should go with? While it is the Washington Post, it is from an Op-Ed from one of their online bloggers. Such an opinionated description might not suffice as a neutral description. Let's see if any other editors weigh in here. Let's see if there is a consensus for adding a definition in the first place and if so, let's see if there are other suggestions for one put forward. Cheers. - the WOLF  child  15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Extraordinary rendition" has a readability index score on the Gunning Fog index of 20.8, as measured by an online index calculator. With the index, a score of 6 indicates that a word or phrase is easy. Words or phrases scoring 20 or higher are considered hard. Neither linking the term in the lead nor extensively covering the term in the body of the article are sufficient under the guidelines set out at WP:MOSINTRO. The guidelines say that uncommon words should be generally avoided in the lead. If an uncommon word must be used (and I agree that the term should be used in the lead), the uncommon word should be put in context, linked, and "briefly defined" in the lead. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are some definitions. The ACLU defines extraordinary rendition as the "transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply." A dictionary calls it the "secret or forcible rendition of a suspected criminal to another country, often a country known to violate human rights and due process of law." The Cambridge English dictionary defines it as "the ​act of taking ​prisoners to another ​country in ​order to do things to them that would not be ​allowed in ​your own ​country, for ​example, ​torturing.. them in ​order to make them give you ​information." Oxford Dictonary defines it as "the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners." A legal website defines it as "...the transfer of a person suspected of being a terrorist or supporter of a group to a foreign nation for imprisonment and interrogation on behalf of the transferring nation", which "...may be done without framing any formal charges, trial or the approval of the court." — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnBeyondZebrax (talk • contribs) 2016-01-29T17:55:09
 * Here are some definitions. The ACLU defines extraordinary rendition as the "transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply." A dictionary calls it the "secret or forcible rendition of a suspected criminal to another country, often a country known to violate human rights and due process of law." The Cambridge English dictionary defines it as "the ​act of taking ​prisoners to another ​country in ​order to do things to them that would not be ​allowed in ​your own ​country, for ​example, ​torturing.. them in ​order to make them give you ​information." Oxford Dictonary defines it as "the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners." A legal website defines it as "...the transfer of a person suspected of being a terrorist or supporter of a group to a foreign nation for imprisonment and interrogation on behalf of the transferring nation", which "...may be done without framing any formal charges, trial or the approval of the court." — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnBeyondZebrax (talk • contribs) 2016-01-29T17:55:09


 * But, there is a difference between "difficult" and "uncommon". While the term appears to be right on the edge of "difficult" by your own cited metric, I would argue that it is hardly "uncommon", especially given all the media coverage it has been given, pretty much since 9/11. There was even a major Hollywood movie made about the subject in 2007, and it's been referenced in numerous other films, television shows, books, articles and other media. It's been debated strenuously in politics, covered widely by the news and discussed thoroughly from educational settings to social media. It's just not such a rare bird that it needs an immediate explanation in the lead.


 * The need for a definition is only half the issue here. The other half is the initial definition that was proffered. I think it was too controversial. The word "abducted" itself is a non-neutral buzz word that doesn't belong in the lead of an article about a major government agency. The entire definition serves to focus the reader on a singular, controversial issue, when the lead really needs to "ease" the reader into the entire scope of the article, which covers the breadth and history of a storied organization, with many different objectives as well as accomplishments. - the WOLF  child  18:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced lead
In discussing the matter above, I have noticed another issue with the lead. At the end of the last paragraph, it reads; Several CIA activities have attracted criticism. They include nonconsensual human experiments, extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques (torture), targeted killings, assassinations and the funding and training of militants who would go on to kill civilians and non-combatants. This adds a great deal of WP:UNDUE negative weight to the lead. This is the sort of material we have a "controversy" section for. There is also a glaring lack of positive material in the lead to offset this information. As it was added with a single edit, I'll remove it see if we can have a discussion here to provide more balance.- the WOLF  child  18:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, instead of removing it, I have re-written it to both provide balance and retain the reference to "extraordinary rendition", as that term is still being discussed in the section above. - the WOLF  child  18:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wolf, MOS:LEAD's guidelines state that significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead. The guidelines states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the "topic" of this article is not "controversies of the CIA ". It's about the CIA as a whole, the organization and it's history. Controversies are just one, smaller part of this article. Along with this agency's failings are it's successes. MOS:LEAD is also clear in that WP:NPOV must be adhered to, which includes WP:BALANCE. By no means is my last edit carved in stone. The lead needed more balance. The last sentence had dumped in a long list controversies, meanwhile leaving the lead with virtually no mention of this agency's accomplishments. In order to be neutral, we need to balance the number of negatives with number of positives mentioned in the lead. My edit is an example of that. Of course, people are free to further edit the lead, but should do so keeping NPOV and balance in mind. - the WOLF  child  21:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Central Intelligence Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090714224420/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQDNMgQrXYHlGWd9F3063DLFpiHAD99BMNVG2 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQDNMgQrXYHlGWd9F3063DLFpiHAD99BMNVG2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

9/11 responder
- Per First responder; First responders typically include police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. That list does not include "military personnel" or "civilians". You keep removing them from the article, despite the fact they were also there assisting at ground zero, and insisting "they are first responders as well". I have asked you to provide a source to support that claim, so perhaps you could take a break from edit warring for a minute and go find one? You can't just remove content "because you say so". - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quite apparent you don't know what the definition of a first responder is. EMTs and paramedics are types of jobs, and can be staffed by civilians. They are civilians because they are not sworn employees like firefighters and law enforcement officers, and don't risk their lives to save people like law enforcement officers and firefighters are. The definition of a civilian, in accordance to Merriam Webster Dictionary, "a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force". No where EMTS and paramedics are excluded in the civilian definition. Plenty of definitions, books, and articles supported the differentiation between civilians, law enforcement officers, and firefighters. Therefore, it has to be removed in order to avoid confusion. You can't just remove it simply because you feel like it or confirming to the definition that wasn't widely accepted. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tell me again what the difference is between a paramedic and a firefighter, how one is "sworn" and the other is not.
 * Then tell me how paramedics "don't risk their lives to save people".
 * Then perhaps you can clarify this: "No where EMTS and paramedics are excluded in the civilian definition".
 * Then post a link to some of these "definitions, books, and articles" that support "the differentiation between civilians, law enforcement officers, and firefighters".
 * Then tell me just how the phrase; "first responders, military personnel and civilians" is "confusing" (to anyone other than you).
 * Then, lastly, explain this: "You can't just remove it simply because you feel like it or confirming to the definition that wasn't widely accepted." - because I'm not removing anything, you are. And you are the one refusing to support the removal by claiming that a lack of proof is proof(?!). Good luck with all that. (by the way, it's obvious that you don't know any paramedics, police, firefighters or military... or what you're talking about, whereas I do.) You need to remember that Wikipedia runs on sources, so let's see some. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  10:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have to repeat this again? Why is this such a big deal to you? I don't see the point. Once again, medical personnel are not sworn personnel and are not trained to risk their lives as firefighters and police officers can. They are only trained to care for patients and treat them in order for them to possibly live. You could say the same for private citizens, but that does not make them non-civilians. That's question-begging fallacy. And talk about a pot calling a kettle black. You don't have any sources to back up the accepted the claim that there is a huge difference between first responders and civilians. Wikipedia IS in fact run on reliable sources so I provided one, like you asked. I backed up the actual and accepted definition who's a civilian, who's a military, or who's a police officer. It's just that I accidentally leave military personnel and civilian so I went back and revert until YOU decide it stays where it is and tried to insisting on keeping it. I provided an actual definition, whereby you don't have any assertion to back up. You have zero to back up your proof other than asserting your own definition. How about YOU provide a source about it, then we'll talk. Until then, your claims are ambiguous and fallacies and don't revert it when we're not done dealing this through. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have to repeat this again? Why is this such a big deal to you? I don't see the point. Once again, medical personnel are not sworn personnel and are not trained to risk their lives as firefighters and police officers can. They are only trained to care for patients and treat them in order for them to possibly live. You could say the same for private citizens, but that does not make them non-civilians. That's question-begging fallacy. And talk about a pot calling a kettle black. You don't have any sources to back up the accepted the claim that there is a huge difference between first responders and civilians. Wikipedia IS in fact run on reliable sources so I provided one, like you asked. I backed up the actual and accepted definition who's a civilian, who's a military, or who's a police officer. It's just that I accidentally leave military personnel and civilian so I went back and revert until YOU decide it stays where it is and tried to insisting on keeping it. I provided an actual definition, whereby you don't have any assertion to back up. You have zero to back up your proof other than asserting your own definition. How about YOU provide a source about it, then we'll talk. Until then, your claims are ambiguous and fallacies and don't revert it when we're not done dealing this through. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Judging by the tone of your post, this is a "big deal" to you. Why? There is no reason to for you to so upset about this. Now, why is it in your entire post, you didn't answer one question I asked you above? And other than your dictionary cite, what other sources do you have? The cite simply states that "a civilian is a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force". And just now you wrote; "...medical personnel are not sworn personnel and are not trained to risk their lives as firefighters and police officers can. They are only trained to care for patients and treat them in order for them to possibly live.". What is it exactly that makes you think you know so much about paramedics? Why are you do eager to exalt police & fire, but treat paramedics as lowly ambulance drivers, no better then the average guy on the street with a first aid certificate? Did you know that many fire and paramedic services are blended? Meaning paramedics are rated as firefighters and "sworn in" (whatever that means... swearing an oath to the Constitution?) Did you know that paramedics go to college and university for degrees, whereas police and fire usually only need a high school diploma to get hired? And paramedics certainly do risk their lives. They get called to the same shootings, the same domestic disputes, the same bar brawls, the same riots, the same car accidents, the same fires, the same structure collapses, etc., etc. as police and fire, but they don't have the benefit of firearms, pepper spray, tasers, batons, handcuffs and the power of arrest (or the perceived authority in general), or the same heavy protective bunker gear and SCBA gear and crew of 5... or 50 if needed. Nope, it's just the two of them, dealing with the violent psychotics, cracked-out addicts, the drunks, the drug seekers looking to rip them off, the people with highly infectious diseases, etc., etc., etc. And they more than just "...care for patients and treat them in order for them to possibly live.", they attend calls for crisis intervention, they do community education programs, they have joint-service programs, tactical paramedics assigned to SWAT teams, Marine Units, Public Order Units (riots), HUSAR Teams (search and rescue), CBRN Units, and more. The point is, you clearly know very little about the field of paramedicine, and I suggest you educate yourself more instead of continuing to make such disrespectful comments about the subject. Basically, paramedics are "first responders", just as is clearly stated in the link you added, and are a far cry from "civilians". Which only leaves the matter of the military. Why would you delete them? They aren't first responders, they aren't civilians, and they certainly were there at ground zero. So, again, disrespecting another honored organization... and for what? Stop this silliness, go do some reading, and let's move on to something else. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  10:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of your arguments makes no sense whatsoever. It's not about what the risk, it's the job description. Paramedics don't risk their lives trying to protect the general public from harm, as much as cops, firefighters, and military personnel do. Cops uses firearms to apprehend criminals, firefighters go into burning buildings to rescue people, and military personnel are to engage the enemy foreign and domestic and restore law and order. The paramedic's job is not to protect the general public, but to help people. How about this, you provide the sources for your assertions or else I will report you to appropriate administrations for edit-warring. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Most of your arguments makes no sense whatsoever" - Why does that not surprise me? You clearly didn't read, actually read, a single thing I wrote, so further interaction with you is a waste of time. You are not interested in a discussion, only arguing your bizarre and uninformed point of view. You clearly have a lot to learn to about emergency services in general, but have no interest in actually learning, just going by what you see on television. Good luck with that, I'm done. "Report" whatever you like. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  19:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * EMT's and paramedics are not "civilians" in the common use. All this parsing of dictionary definitions ignores a healthy does of reality. When the yellow tape goes up and the cops on the perimeter are told to "keep out civilians", they're not keeping out their own crime scene techs (who aren't sworn in many agencies), the coroner, Urban Search & Rescue and.... paramedics/EMT's. (No, I don't have a source to link you to and yes, I realize it's anecdotal). In many cases, such as in my local area, the EMT's and Paramedics could very well be fire fighters as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your definition, but I rather stick to the common definition of what really is. A lot of articles also describe the differences between criminals and civilians, but paramedics and "civilians", not so much because in the eyes, people considered paramedics to be civilians, the same goes for government employees. They are civilians too. Paramedics don't risk their lives trying to protect the general public from harm, as much as cops, firefighters, and military personnel do. Cops uses firearms to apprehend criminals, firefighters go into burning buildings to rescue people, and military personnel are to engage the enemy foreign and domestic and restore law and order. The paramedic's job is not to protect the general public, but to help people. Government employees have regular jobs like private citizens do. They are sometimes not described as civilians, but often times, the common definition of a civilian also applies to them. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not my definition. It appears that Wolfchild has a similar understanding of the term. When you say things like "Paramedics don't risk their lives trying to protect the general public from harm" I question whether or not you know what paramedics even do. Here's a good illustration of paramedics that train to work in tactical environments. You've clearly never been at a crash scene while a paramedic is inside the car, stabilizing a patient, while they try to keep it from sliding into a river. But whatever, at this point, it's you who is trying to use their personal understanding of the term. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Huge section on the history of CIA nasty behavior is completely gone from this article!

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
 * http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

I remember reading this article about 6 years ago, and it had huge, huge sections on the CIA. Now these huge sections are completely gone from this article!

Where did they go? Moscowamerican (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)