Talk:List of CIA controversies

"Wikipedia editing"
do you have any more info to add to your recent entry to the list? The CIA has 22,000 employees, (plus who knows how many others have access to their networks... contractors, etc.) The fact someone there may have made some edits to WP, a top 10 internet site, doesn't seem all that controversial on its own. The edits were apparently made to the pages for William Colby (a CIA Director from the early '70s) and the Iraq War. A look at the Colby talk page doesn't show any discussions regarding any edits made by a CIA network, and a search through the extensive history of the Iraq War talk page seemingly only has one brief discussion, from 2007, about the same report you've posted. That discussion was more about whether or not to add a note to the page about the report, than whether they were actually controversial. Do you, (or anyone) know which edits were posted from a CIA network? Any additional info would be helpful. - wolf  22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what edits were posted from the CIA network. I just added it because it is a controversy discussed in reliable sources. Do you think it should be removed? X-Editor (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, it doesn't seem all that controversial to me, with the info given. But, I don't think there's any need to remove it straight away. I's say leave it for a bit and see if anyone else responds to it or this discussion. Come back to it after awhile and reassess. (jmho) - wolf  22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. X-Editor (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Update needed
This is a dated reference to 2010 that should be updated.

''"The House is expected to support the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Bill including a provision that would require the President to inform more than 40 members of Congress about covert operations. The Obama administration threatened to veto the final version of a bill that included such a provision." ''

By now, that legislation must either have passed or abandoned. John Nagle (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Nagle, I have corrected to past tense but the AP article cited does not mention contents of the bill's provisions. That detail requires a source or it should be left out. Drocj (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)