Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

Cuba: Sabotage and Terrorism - Neutrality

This section titled Cuba: Sabotage and Terrorism is incredibly biased and poorly worded. Its not a balanced overview of covert actions in Cuba. Some of the sources don't call these attacks terrorism so the label is clearly contentious. Some of the information is misrepresented or exaggerated. It says attacks killed "significant numbers of civilians" and "large number of civilians killed in the CIA's terrorist attacks". But the sources don't say this or give death estimates and simply say Cubans were killed in attacks. It's very vague. It also says "Though the level of terrorist activity directed by the CIA lessened in the second half of the 1960s, in 1969 the CIA was directed to intensify its operations against Cuba." The source doesn't say this, it says Nixon ordered an increase in operations against Cuba and nothing about terrorist attacks. The mention of the Cubana 455 bombing needs to be clarified because it could be misinterpreted as being a CIA ordered attack with the current wording and the section title. This whole section could be cut down a bit and summarized more. GelShick92 (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@GelShick92: you have a few options here;
You can wait until you have enough time and edits (4 days and 10 edits), and then you can make changes yourself - any changes that you feel will improve the article.
Or you can request changes using the edit request template - but ensure your request is made in a "change x to y" format.
Or, you can wait to see if someone will act on your current post and make changes.
It's up to you - wolf 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to the claim that the sources don't say this or give death estimates, the reference given immediately after the sentence you quote cites a formal démarche lodged with the United Nations, indicating a figure of 3,748 Cuban deaths (p.392). So rather than an estimate it gives an exact figure. The scholarship of the past 30 years characterises the US' policy and actions in the Cuban Project as terrorism so frequently as to be a commonplace. It is now largely done without comment, though occasionally historians seek to clarify their use of the term in this context (e.g.). As to this sentence: in 1969 the CIA was directed to intensify its operations against Cuba." The source doesn't say this, it says Nixon ordered an increase in operations against Cuba; I'll not comment, out of politeness. These points suggest you are not entirely familiar with the sources you seek to critique. All that said, the term "large number" involves an excessive degree of value judgement, so I'll remove it. Cambial foliage❧ 22:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Is their an estimate for CIA directed attacks from a more neutral party than the Cuban state? I said the sources didn't give figures for CIA attacks or say large numbers died in their attacks and this source doesn't actually give a figure for CIA directed attacks, such as operation Mongoose, as you claim. The full quote is "Cuba has reported to the United Nations that 3,478 Cubans have died and 2,099 have been disabled by terrorist activities, including the trade embargo". This is vague. When was this figure made and what exactly does it mean when it includes deaths, as Jane Franklin calls it, from the terrorist trade embargo? Are these deaths that wouldn't have occured had certain supplies been available from the US? It talks about terrorist attacks by exiles on page 391, like the Cubana flight attack which was not a CIA attack even if the CIA had knowledge exiles might attack a plane. So the source doesn't even say large numbers were killed by CIA terrorism or give a figure for CIA attacks and this figure isn't from a neutral party and it's unclear what exactly it refers to because it clearly includes deaths from non CIA attacks like the airline bombing regardless of whether Cuba and the author want to blame the CIA for all attacks. Anyway, thanks for removing the term "large number". GelShick92 (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I will also note that on the page for the Escambray rebellion it says "Norberto Fuentes, a close friend of Fidel Castro who had privileged knowledge of the Cuban state security apparatus, gave the figures of 3,478 killed and 2,099 wounded for Cubans fighting in the pro-government National Revolutionary Militia". So another source quotes this exact same figure from a friend of Castro and it refers to militia dead fighting rebels and not a figure reported to the UN for terrorism deaths. GelShick92 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source, because any idiot can add unsupported nonsense. You are expending a great many words on a number which is not and has never been in the article. Cambial foliage❧ 13:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fully in agreement that wikipedia is not a reliable source for multiple reasons. Thanks for spotting that edit too. Also, I'm just explaining the figure because you mentioned it implying it was an estimate of those killed by CIA terrorism which isn't the case. Anyway this figure isn't on the page so I guess it doesn't matter and you and I shouldn't expend any more words on it. GelShick92 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@GelShick92: Looking at the first four refs attached to the end of the second sentence of the first paragraph, there are some questions about the use of the word "terrorism" in this context. The first and fourth refs don't mention terrorism at all, the second one has "State Sponsored Terrorism" added to the cite as a... title? (Even though it's immediately followed by a linked title, so it's not clear what that's about.) The third ref, the GWU website, mentions the word "terrorist" twice, while discussing records released from the Nat'l Archives via FOI. But the word "terrorist" doesn't actually appear in the posted records, it's just part of the opinionated commentary of the GWU editors, John Prados and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi, discussing said records. It's not clear what kind of support there is for such opinions. Can we consider this as unbiased? Or is this a weight and/or neutrality issue? (Or even a sourcing issue?) Haven't looked at any additional refs yet. Perhaps whoever added this content can be pinged so they can add some clarification? Anyway, just some things to think about/look into. - wolf 15:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Your comments are incorrect. The first ref clearly characterises the project as "U.S.-government sponsored terrorism". The second ref uses "State Sponsored Terrorism" in the |chapter= parameter: an appropriate choice as that's the title of the chapter in the monograph. Your personal tagging of the third ref as "opinionated commentary" does not reflect how WP treats work authored by scholars and published by academic institutions. Finally, contrary to your claim, it's entirely clear what level of support there is for these sources' characterisation of the project as "terrorism": the multiple other sources used which use the same characterisation, the majority having been through a peer-review process and/or oversight by an academic-press editorial board. Cambial foliage❧ 16:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Relax, there's no need to get all wound up and hostile again. Not every discussion on WP needs to be a battle. I was just responding to GelShick92, with a few questions and observations, (with links as they are a new editor). I didn't initiate the discussion about that section, nor have I edited it - though it does need editing, for balance if anything. GelShick92, or any other interested parties, should consider whether other sources dispute the sponsored-by-US-terroism accusations. That is the reason I mentioned weight and neutrality. But for now, that's up to them. Have a nice day - wolf 13:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Who is wound up or hostile? I've merely corrected some rather obvious errors you made in your comment. You seem to be imagining things; perhaps consider whether your perception of hostility is a projection of your own feelings, just as it was in an earlier conversation. Cambial foliage❧ 14:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. I think we're done here. - wolf 15:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This section is poor and biased as discussed earlier and needs to be rewritten. I made edits that corrected misrepresented sources and I was blanket reverted with false reasoning. I even added dates and the death toll of the Cubana flight terrorist attack and this was reverted for some reason. There are obvious misrepresentations in the current text. For example the line "The operation was so extensive that it housed the largest number of CIA officers outside of Langley. It was a major employer in Florida, with several thousand agents in clandestine pay of the agency" is misrepresented because the quotes in the citations make it clear that Operation Mongoose itself employed 400 at the station whereas the reference to thousands on the payroll refers to people on the payroll of the CIA in general in Miami. I don't see why it shouldn't be made clear as I did in my edit that were at the station. M addition of the line "Operation Mongoose was discontinued in early 1963" was removed because it "gives an false impressions of what occurred. other sources are clear that the operation continued through 1965". This is original research. The citation is "While Operation Mongoose was discontinued early in 1963, terrorist actions were reauthorised by the president ..... Authorised CIA raids continued at least until 1965." Subsequent operations were different operations according to the quote even if they were similar. My other edits made the structure of the paragraph better. I moved the line "Despite the damage done and civilians killed in the CIA's terrorist attacks, by the measure of its stated objective the project was a complete failure" because it's current placement could give the false impression that the Cubana terrorist attack was by the CIA and the citations are clearly referring to operations in the 60s. GelShick92 (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

There are no misrepresentations in the current text. Your version introduced incoherent sentences such as "The CIA was a major employer Miami in the 1960s, with several thousand agents in the agencies payroll." when there was no identified need to alter the sentence already in the article, which was coherent and properly reflected the sources: "The operation was so extensive that it housed the largest number of CIA officers outside of Langley. It was a major employer in Florida, with several thousand agents in clandestine pay of the agency." You claim that the quotes in the citations make it clear that Operation Mongoose itself employed 400 at the station whereas the reference to thousands on the payroll refers to people on the payroll of the CIA in general in Miami. yet the quote says "Through the 1960s, the private University of Miami had the largest Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) station in the world, outside of the organization's headquarters in Virginia. With perhaps as many as twelve thousand Cubans in Miami on its payroll at one point in the early 1960s, the CIA was one of the largest employers in the state of Florida. It supported what was described as the third largest navy in the world and over fifty front businesses: CIA boat shops, gun shops, travel agencies, detective agencies, and real estate agencies". I've added a clause with the number of CIA officers in. The source is not saying what you think it does. The four hundred figure refers to CIA *officers* i.e. permanent employees who recruit and run agents. The twelve thousand figure refers to *agents* who were working for the Cuban Project/Operation Mongoose and being "run" by the four hundred officers.

The sentence "Operation Mongoose was discontinued in early 1963" was removed because this section is about all the CIA activities in Cuba during this period. It is not about activities under one specific codeword, and it discusses the operations beyond the limited scope of one short-lived Mongoose codeword. Your version "Operation Mongoose formally stopped in early 1963. Attacks in Cuba continued until 1965." gives the false impression that the operation was ended in 1963. This is the opposite of what the source states: "While Operation Mongoose was discontinued early in 1963, terrorist actions were reauthorised by the president. In October 1963, 13 major CIA actions against Cuba were approved for the next two months alone, including the sabotage of an electric power plant, a sugar mill and an oil refinery. Authorised CIA raids continued at least until 1965. So the operation under one specific codeword ended but the CIA attacks that are the subject of this section continued. Your change was not an accurate or proper reflection of that source.

I've added a paragraph break to separate off the concluding sentence. The source says "Operation Mongoose and various other terrorist operations caused property damage and injured and killed Cubans. But they failed to achieve their goal of regime change." There is no indication it is exclusively discussing operations in the 1960s (and this is apparent from the full source). As is made clear in another source cited, "One of Nixon's first acts in office in 1969 was to direct the CIA to intensify covert operations against Cuba", so the notion that this is exclusively about the early 1960s operations is unsupported. Cambial foliage❧ 04:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Updated seal but appears squashed?

Hi all, updated the seal based on the recent 2021 rebrand into black and white design however for some reason the infobox won't update and the seal appears squashed? Most likely it will fix itself eventually but if someone could provide some answers that'd be great thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunt38 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

CIA involvement in Mexico.

The CIA helped to create the Dirección Federal de Seguridad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.176.47 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

2600:1700:5E28:830:50D6:F138:431C:E77A (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Royale Commander Patrick D Bridges

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Killer Mike - Reagan

Add the CIA connection?

The song "Reagan" explains how US President Ronald Regan lied to the American public. It also mentions how the Central Intelligence Agency and Oliver North looked the other way when terrorists shipped in narcotics to inner city American cities, causing the Crack epidemic in the United States, as revealed by journalist Gary Webb.

CIA employees have been caught before editing Wikipedia. Now I am sure the CIA contracts it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:810C:7751:2D5E:5DAB:1ACE:9199 (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn’t clear what you want, but song lyrics aren’t a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Mission Centers

I'm proposing to update the Organization section of this article to reflect the changes made by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. While the Directorates of Analysis and Operations still exist as discrete organizations, CIA ops and analysis have been essentially combined into "Mission Centers," organized similarly to previously stood up centers covering counterterrorism, narcotics/crime, counterintelligence. This is groundbreaking and is conspicuously absent from the article. Several open sources available to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbarragan (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)