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, come here to 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 (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Central Intelligence Agency is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
Merge, with caveat. In general there's not categorically a problem with having a separate page for this as we do a similar thing in other comparable cabinet agencies at a similar level, e.g. Bureau of Legislative Affairs for State; however in this specific case there's not really enough content to justify an independent page and given that classification issues are going to likely always weigh against that, I think it'd make more sense to merge.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!03:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Merge. Dozens of agencies in the US government have an "office of congressional affairs". It's doubtful that any of them are independently notable. This one is not. Cambial — foliar❧22:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
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. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
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.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!07:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Jeffreys-Jones as a source
Latest comment: 10 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion
On this article, there's some citations referencing Rhodi Jeffreys-Jones' A Question of Standing. Just wanted to make readers aware that there's a fairly recent (2023) book review from the Studies in Intelligence journal which, while published by the CIA, is a properly peer-reviewed academic journal that hits all the required points of a reliable source. It stresses that Jeffreys-Jones is a serious writer offering an honest and open-minded appraisal of the Agency, and in general praises many areas of his research; but does go on to point out that the work is prone to an unfortunate tendency to choose sensational, unsupported assertions that distract the reader and call into question his analytic rigor, pure, unsubstantiated supposition, pseudo-psychology and generalization, and similar embellishments; and that In a pattern that is all-too-frequent in A Question of Standing, the author spends pages making an argument about the relative standing of the CIA at a certain time, only to undermine his point shortly thereafter. It further notes that... To be fair, Jeffreys-Jones—like all intelligence historians—has a great disadvantage when writing about the recent past because they are forced to rely so heavily on journalistic accounts and interviews with former intelligence professionals, often leading them to draw conclusions based on incomplete information. Some errors in A Question of Standing, however, are hard to excuse. For example, the author confuses the 1976 Entebbe raid by Israeli commandos with the events surrounding the hijacking of TWA 847 in 1985 and implies—mistakenly—that forces from the US Joint Special Operations Command participated, a blunder so eminently discoverable that it leads this reviewer to judge that the book’s editors and fact-checkers were also falling down on the job. In general, the book review did not levy a specific criticism at any specific claims that we're relying on from Jeffreys-Jones that I saw in a quick skim, though I could have missed something; however it does strongly imply that we should get independent sourcing where possible. The one claim that comes to mind specifically is the one stating that the Phoenix Program resulted in the assassinations of 20,000 civilians. That's a pretty extraordinary claim that I think should get additional sourcing to support it. CC: @Cerebellum: as this touches on your recent edits. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Swatjester. I've removed the claim about the Phoenix Program, since another source disputes the characterization of the killings as assassinations, and of those killed as civilians (p. 12). As for Jeffreys-Jones, it looks like publications unaffiliated with the CIA have reviewed him more favorably ([1], [2]), but feel free to remove him if you would like. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how removal of that material is justified by this critique of the source, especially when there are other sources in the main article that can be used to improve the material. I took a stab at improving the language used here, let me know what you think. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not all material merits inclusion in an article. It's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing; a single secondary source whose reliability has been criticized in a peer-review journal, provided without methodology as to how it came to that conclusion, doesn't meet that bar. If the number were legitimate, it shouldn't be difficult to find non Jeffreys-Jones sources that verify it or support the methodology. To be clear, it's the claim surrounding the number specifically that's the problem, not the claims of targeted killings. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!17:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Swatjester; the number is questionable. The figure of 20,000 is taken from the testimony of William Colby to a congressional committee in 1972. Colby had clear bureaucratic motivation to minimise the number of murders committed by employees of the article subject. Vietnamese sources give a figure of 40,000, which is also cited by numerous scholarly sources. It's appropriate to indicate the range of figures cited in the available literature on the topic. Cambial — foliar❧19:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's been a couple decades since I've read them, but I vaguely recall that some of the autobiographies of the early (Richard Marcinko-era) Navy SEALs who were involved with the Phoenix program had additional supporting information here, in the format of "we were running X missions a night for Y months straight, and we totalled Z number of hits..." so there's definitely additional sourcing out there we can use to either refine the number or backstop the existing claim. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!19:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Another example of a serious problem in Jeffreys-Jones:
"Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) was able to estimate the number of regular troops in the North Vietnamese armed forces . . . A young Harvard-educated analyst working alone at the CIA took a different view. Sam Adams counted guerrilla-militia forces as well as the regular troops infiltrated from the North. At the end of 1966, the US armed forces chief gave enemy strength as 270,000, but Adams made it 600,000." Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, A Question of Standing, pp. 83-84.
In late 1966 MACV and Sam Adams were counting exactly the same categories of enemy personnel. Adams included guerrilla-militia in his count because MACV included them in its count. Indeed that MACV estimate of about 270,000 included far more guerrilla-militia than North Vietnamese regular troops.