Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

{{Article history|action1=GAN

|action1date=05:34, 15 April 2007

|action1result=listed

|action1link=Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive 3#It passed GA

|action1oldid=122924360

|action2=PR

|action2date=22:01, 20 May 2008

|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Central Intelligence Agency/archive1

|action2result=reviewed

|action2oldid=213804305

|action3=FAC

|action3date=19:17, 11 April 2009

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Intelligence Agency/archive1

|action3result=not promoted

|action3oldid=283214260

|action4=GAR

|action4date=June 24, 2009

|action4link=Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/GA1

|action4result=Delisted

|action4oldid=298278066

|topic=Socsci

|currentstatus=DGA

|otd1date=2012-09-18

|otd1oldid=513396741

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|USGov=y|USGov-importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Military history

|class =B

|B1 =y

|B2 =y

|B3 =y

|B4 =y

|B5 =y

|Intel =y

|US =y}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes |American-importance=mid}}

}}

{{high-traffic|date=May 6 2007|url=http://digg.com/politics/Why_Are_We_Allowing_Secret_CIA_Prisons|site=Digg|small=}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 12

|minthreadsleft = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Central Intelligence Agency/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Refideas

| {{cite journal |last=Rudgers |first=David F. |title=The Origins of Covert Action |journal=Journal of Contemporary History |publisher=Sage Publications |volume=35 |issue=2 |year=2000 |issn=00220094 |jstor=261206 |pages=249–262 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/261206 |access-date=December 5, 2024 |ref=none}}

}}

__TOC__

''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 ([https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/rhodri-jeffreys-jones/a-question-of-standing-cia/ Kirkus Reviews] calls it "the standard history of the CIA"), but it has been negatively reviewed by historians ([https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684520802591475 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 {{User|Tiwein}}, 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. {{tq|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)