Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Intelligence Agency/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:17, 11 April 2009.

Central Intelligence Agency

 * Nominator(s): No barometer of intelligence and Morethan3words

I am nominating Central Intelligence Agency for featured article designation because it has been under public deliberation going back to June 28, 2008. There is a very thorough discussion of the article's merits and readiness for FA status on the talk page, and several editors who have been active in making the article as thorough and comprehensive as it is have weighed in on that talk page. It easily meets the enumerated criteria for Wikipedia Featured Article status, and is informative and of great interest to those who follow current events. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added on April 10. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Obviously since I was going to nominate it anyway. I look forward to hearing what people have to say. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Contributor and nominators (don't usually support). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense. I put in the support before adding myelf as a nominator, if it makes sense to remove my support comment, I'm happy to do so. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
 * P.S., Also, I urge anyone who is looking at this article to at least skim the associated main articles that often go into much greater detail on specific issues than this main article does. One of the most common issues we have had with past editors is that they do not see a particular issue in the main article (e.g., CIA's actions in South Africa) and assume it is not covered anywhere in wiki, whereas it is more than likely covered in depth in one of these associated articles that are referenced and linked in this article. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Tech. Review
 * Ref formatting checks out fine with the WP:REFTOOLS script.
 * Fix the 10 disambiguation links
 * Done. (Morethan3words (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Fix the 4 dead external links-- T ru  c o   17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems that this was taken care of somehow, as when I go to the page now there are no dead links. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Oppose for now Just looking at the lead I see a bunch of problems.
 * Too much blue and too many refs in the lead.
 * some blue removed, and a couple of sentences with references moved to approriate section. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The fact that the CIA is prohibited from collecting intelligence inside the US borders needs to be in the lead.
 * Done. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The lead should briefly contrast the functions of the CIA and NSA.
 * I'm not sure why this is necessary in the lead, please explain. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The paragraph "When discussing the CIA…" is written in a very non-encyclopedic style.
 * Re-written. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The lead absolutely has to say something about history, especially the numerous occasions where the CIA played the lead role in attempts to destabilize foreign governments -- basically the dual function of "covert ops" versus "intel".
 * I am not sure why this is necessary, a brief examination of articles on the FBI, NSA, DIA, Department of State, Department of Commerce and even the US Congress reveals no discussion of specific actions taken in any of their leads, and I don't think WP:LEAD requires as much. Current re-wording, however, does discuss the importance of the changes that occurred in 2004, from an organizational standpoint. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The lead should also mention the "culture of secrecy" associated with the CIA.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by this, it discusses internal IC politics and efforts to foster cooperation, if that has anything to do with what you mean. (Morethan3words (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

And that's without even looking at the body yet. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The kinds of objections that Looie496 enumerates above are what I (and former editor Howard C. Berkowitz) feared in the FA review process.  These are very old, almost shopworn editing disputes regarding the main CIA article that were long ago effectively settled among the editors who have actually taken a hand at substantially improving the article from the conspiratorial, boogy-man mishmash that it was before December of 2007.  I would ask people to look through some of the article's archived discussion pages to see if their potential criticisms of the article as it currently stands have already been addressed.  Here is a link to a particularly good portion of the voluminous archived discussions this one article has spawned:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency/Archive_4 Plausible to deny (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Always willing to listen to reasons, but I'm not willing to hunt through massive archives in hopes of finding good reasons. I stand by my rather basic objections. Looie496 (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I've been watching this set (can't really deal with the single main CIA article in isolation) of articles and their associated discussion pages for some time now, after making a few edits of my own a year or two ago. I think they meet all of the FA criteria, and are a tribute to the incredible volunteer scholarship of Wikipedia. An unattributed source (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

,, , . I suggest this FAC be immediately delisted and the GA be removed. I ask the FAC directors to contact the GA directors. The article isn't in good shape anyway. — Rlevse • Talk  • 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have checkuser-confirmed long term socking and vote stacking, here at this FAC by . I have blocked him 3 months and 4 socks indef:
 * This article is long way from FAC-ready, and should be submitted to peer review to prepare for GA. Because of the long-term socking, I'll archive now and ask that GA re-evaluate.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well... that's disappointing... I guess I'll just have to spend a couple months walking it through GA, PR and FAC, again.(Morethan3words (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.