Talk:Central Intelligence Agency: Difference between revisions

From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by 69.54.25.2 (talk) to last version by 87.112.201.36)
 
Line 157: Line 157:
   
 
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (deleting it is a heavy-handed way of tring to re-write history. What is written in the page will be a news-worthy item and reprinted many times over, spreading the information of hatever you don't like far more than would have been the case if it was left up there...) --[[Special:Contributions/87.112.201.36|87.112.201.36]] ([[User talk:87.112.201.36|talk]]) 11:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (deleting it is a heavy-handed way of tring to re-write history. What is written in the page will be a news-worthy item and reprinted many times over, spreading the information of hatever you don't like far more than would have been the case if it was left up there...) --[[Special:Contributions/87.112.201.36|87.112.201.36]] ([[User talk:87.112.201.36|talk]]) 11:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020 ==
 
 
{{edit semi-protected|Central Intelligence Agency|answered=no}}
 
Andrew Bishop [[Special:Contributions/69.54.25.2|69.54.25.2]] ([[User talk:69.54.25.2|talk]]) 16:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 17:14, 16 January 2020

Former good articleCentral Intelligence Agency was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 11, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 24, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Deep web's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 18, 2012.
Current status: Delisted good article

High traffic

On May 6 2007, Central Intelligence Agency was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

(Impartial) Tone[edit]

There are quite a few sentences in this article that don't have the formal tone of an encyclopedic article, like this one:

Al Qaeda threats were ubiquitous in daily Presidential CIA briefings, but it may have become a case of the boy who cries wolf.

Also the History section over large portions is just a list of all the things the CIA got wrong. It's alright to include them, but I would expect a little more context. Otherwise it reads like a list of complaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:675:3e60:4ca1:269e:3d6d:bc63 (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. - theWOLFchild 04:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Article split[edit]

Following the example of List of FBI controversies, when it was split from the main FBI article, I have split the list of controversies off to List of CIA controversies, per WP:TOOBIG. The page was 210kB, it is now 159kB. - wolf 19:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversies[edit]

I really don't see why we shouldn't include a few links and a good summary — diff, diff, diff — per WP:CORRECTSPLIT: "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article. Note: it may be best to prepare this in advance as summarising several pages of text and selecting a single image may not be a trivial task. Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic." -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And I don't see why you cant follow the rules for a content dispute like everyone else. And how many different talk pages do you intend to spread this across? I've already replied to you. - wolf 16:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild:, please don't remove template messages — diff. We have to follow the WP:CORRECTSPLIT. So, what's your proposal? -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Which examples you choose represent synthesis and given a linked article they really aren't necessary. I'm inclined to remove the tag as its unnecssary and implies your perspective is accepted which it isn't -----Snowded TALK 12:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You are wikihounding by reverting my edits throughout Deep web, Snowded — diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tobby72 - I've replied to your talk page. - wolf 12:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild — Please discuss on this article's talk page. I've already made suggestions — diff, diff, diff. I've also invited other users to discuss and edit this article. — diff, diff. So, what's your specific proposal? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tobby - I've just replied to you, but you already know that. - wolf 23:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC — Controversies[edit]

Regarding this change: Should the tag be removed? What else do you recommend to improve this article? There is an ongoing dispute regarding the Controversies section. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

An RfC is to get other editors involved in determining specific proposals for changes to the article. You've had an offer on your talk page to create something that might be a proper summary to insert here (rather than your personal selection of cases which was properly reverted). You should take that up and only raise an RfC if resolution is not possible -----Snowded TALK 17:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Now he's posting RfC's after a full week of refusing to engage. And this is over a 'tag'...? Seriously? Just join the, work out summary and get this over. I don't why you are trying to drag this out so long, not to mention all this drama. - wolf 17:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Snowded, you yourself advised me to use RfC — diff. Regarding this edit, per WP:RFC: "Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An {{rfc}} tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met." -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Its an improper RfC in the first place. - wolf 20:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

New onion site[edit]

CIA now has an onion site: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2019-press-releases-statements/ciagov-over-tor.html

Please edit to mention it. --Alexvong1995 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot add the onion link because onion links are blacklisted. --Alexvong1995 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For how long? Smithydebbie (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2019[edit]

It should be like this: 1. Cyber intelligence, the top priority (Without it, you can not identify the suspected state-non, state actors these days. Chinese have built their whole defense complex because of the stolen material of US and Europe. Situation of Cyber security inside US owned firms is pathetic, if you know anything about that only.) 2. Counterintelligence (If the agency is infiltrated by the moles, all other things are useless.) 3. Counter-terrorism,(WMD is no threat, the radioactive material in a suitcase, in the hands of ISIS or AL Qaida-(though non-existent but

  still a large support base in countries like Saudi Arebia) is a bigger threat)    )

4. Warning/informing American leaders of important overseas events (If the leaders and policy makers are informed about everything, they wont allow anything too. You should learn from your own operation, Abbotabad. The way the Obama Administration was in dark till last moment, was the key to success for the whole operation. Otherwise, the politics would have never allowed the Helos to cross the Pakistani borders at all, leave the raid at all. When the people shared their info about ISIS, in 2013, well in advance, when it was still in its infancy, what happened, is still a history. Check with Mattis, he knows better.). 5. Nonproliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. (Unless and until, the top 4 are meeting, you cant do anything about the fifth issue.) Ims2012034 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 12:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Who controls the government overthrows, murders, etc ? Does the president, congress, .. or is the CIA allowed to operate independently. Are their activities official government policy? When did the morph from gathering data to a military wing of the USA? Is their anyone who can control them or the FBI? 2601:181:8301:4510:5008:B8C2:A3EB:786D (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC) 2601:181:8301:4510:5008:B8C2:A3EB:786D (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"Bay of Pigs thing"[edit]

The words "Cuba Invasion" are not in the source and should not have been added. It is WP:NOR in that is "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". I have removed it, but it was reverted, so I will stick in a 'Not specifically in source' tag for now.--Epideme12 (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summaries imply that the "Bay of Pigs thing" might mean something else - and that you're employing your own interpretation that it might have nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs invasion, which seems to me to be a very odd way to approach it. I have no objection to quoting Nixon directly as the substance of your edit does, but I have a little trouble with the idea that you're implying via edit summary there might be some other veiled allusion. You're getting into an extremely literal interpretation of NOR while at the same time advancing an unsourced argument that "Bay of Pigs thing" was some sort of code phrase for something else. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
And here's a source [1] Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your source does not mention what "Bay of Pigs" meant and if anything is a source to back up my edit summary. My edit summary was NPOV. I do not have any opinion on what "Bay of pigs" actually meant, but it is a cryptic comment that does not obviously mean the Cuban invasion. I am stunned that you reverted this edit on the basis of my edit summary, rather than on the edit itself. Epideme12 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times article clearly describes the allusion to "the Bay of Pigs thing" as a threat to bring up Democratic involvement int eh Bay of Pigs invasion. It mentions it several times and makes it clear that this was a threat by Nixon . There's no "code phrase" or anything of the sort. "Nixon Explains His Taped Cryptic Remark About Helms." As I said, I'm fine with quoting Nixon directly, but there's no actual doubt or absence of sources to explainwhat Nixon was talking about. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to read the NYT article again. The only time it mentions what Nixon said was 'Mr. Nixon said that his statement to Mr. Haldeman about having protected Mr. Helms had concerned the forthcoming publication, by a former C.I.A. employee, of a book “which would, for the first time, reveal a great deal of classfied information about the C.I.A.”' This has nothing to do with the Cuba invasion and even less about Democratic involvement!? Epideme12 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to explain how you get to the notion that the "Bay of Pigs thing" doesn't actually have anything to do with Nixon's threat to politically weaponize the Bay of Pigs operations by the CIA, which the NYT article mentions in some detail. I'm guessing it has something to do with Oliver Stone, since we have here an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that goes into extensive detail about Nixon's obsession with the Bay of Pigs business and how he planned to use it [2], in the context of debunking Stone. "New tapes debunk Oliver Stone's "Nixon'." Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


>I think you need to explain how you get to the notion that the "Bay of Pigs thing" doesn't actually have anything to do with Nixon's threat.
No. I think you need to explain why it does. Your second link is full of opinion, but very little fact. Thanks for the suggestion I watch Nixon. I will add it to my watch list. Epideme12 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is biased and needs to be rewritten[edit]

This entire article has been modified by people with anti-American sentiment and reads like a long list of failures. If a well-funded agency did manage such a long list of failures without successes, that would need to be documented in its own section. Instead, the article reads as though the CIA just can't do anything right. And for that, the article needs to be torn down and rewritten from scratch. --Alterego (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (deleting it is a heavy-handed way of tring to re-write history. What is written in the page will be a news-worthy item and reprinted many times over, spreading the information of hatever you don't like far more than would have been the case if it was left up there...) --87.112.201.36 (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)