Talk:Central Intelligence Agency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | The content of Office of Strategic Research was merged into Central Intelligence Agency on 28 February 2026. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The content of Office of Congressional Affairs was merged into Central Intelligence Agency on 21 October 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Central Intelligence Agency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Central 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | On May 6 2007, Central Intelligence Agency was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Legacy of Ashes
Hello everyone, the article currently cites Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes extensively. This is a problem because the book is controversial. Some people love it (Kirkus Reviews calls it "the standard history of the CIA"), but it has been negatively reviewed by historians (example), who say it is biased. I propose replacing it with more neutral sources, but I wanted to seek consensus here first. Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would avoid Weiner -- even the title of his book is a factual error, and his scholarship is widely criticized as being shoddy. Not to mention he was making some obvious COI edits on his own articles with the account Tiwein (talk · contribs), which is not a good sign. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- How can Legacy of Ashes be a factual error? I don't see a purported statement of fact in those words. Ed Moise (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Legacy_of_Ashes_(book)#Title. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Your explanation does not explain. What in that title constitutes a factual error? Ed Moise (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty well explained in the above link.
Weiner incorrectly attributes the phrase "legacy of ashes" to Eisenhower's assessment of the CIA's performance under his administration...."as more than one reviewer of Weiner's book has shown, Eisenhower was not talking about the CIA; he was addressing another subject altogether—the fact that each branch of the US military had its own intelligence agency, and the failure during his administration to centralize that ongoing, wasteful, inefficient military intelligence setup.
⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)- Thank you. That would have justified a statement that the title came from a factual error, or was based on a factual error. Not that it is a factual error. The title did not say, or even hint, anything about the origin of the phrase. Thus my original confusion. Ed Moise (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty well explained in the above link.
- Your explanation does not explain. What in that title constitutes a factual error? Ed Moise (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Legacy_of_Ashes_(book)#Title. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- How can Legacy of Ashes be a factual error? I don't see a purported statement of fact in those words. Ed Moise (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
CIA's seal seem to have changed
Recently browsed X to see the CIA's profile picture changed to something new. Visiting cia.gov, it seems like their seal has been updated (and I'd imagine with this, the flag has also been updated but I can't verify this). Before making any changes, I thought it would be better to consult here at the talk page before making any sudden changes. TwistedAxe [contact] 19:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)