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 (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 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
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Hillsberg, Christina (2025). Agents of Change: The Women Who Transformed the CIA (1st Hardcover ed.). New York: Citadel Press. ISBN9780806543499. OCLC1458539552.
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]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
