Talk:James Jesus Angleton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Jesus Angleton article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents


[edit] External link to kook Web site

Why does the external link go to some kook's page on the CIA and UFOs? Why not a more honest bio? I suggest: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSangleton.htm. It's not as sexy as the conspiracy theory but it has a solid foundation in facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.186.111 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 January 2005

It's interesting to note that as of January 2008 (3 years later), the article has been whitewashed of all references to UFOs. Solid evidence apparently exists, that Angleton was involved in high-level briefings in the early-to-mid 1950s where UFOs were the topic. Removing all the information and links because some Wikipedians thought that this was "tinfoil hat" material has only served to make this article non-NPOV. (I think user 12.220.186.111 was referring to the now-removed link to www.rense.com. I'm not endorsing this particular source, nor am I critical of it. Note, however, that the rense.com article has far more footnote references than this Wikipedia article, and is researched and written better.) —QuicksilverT @ 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraphs too long

I would like to toss in a vote for the paragraphs of this article to be scanned quickly to find appropriate paragraph breaks to insert - at present, at medium monitor resolution, the sheer size of many of the paragraphs can make the article difficult to read. Along with this, perhaps we could double space the paragraph breaks to again make for easier reading and viewing? This article is a (great) wall of text that can throw an asitgmatism for a loop ;P Dxco 01:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philby

The Kim Philby article says Philby trained Angleton in espionage in Portugal in 1941; this article says they met in London 1943. The Portugal referece is drawn from John Loftus's The Secret War Against the Jews. Can this be reconciled? i.e., fill in Angleton in Portugal in 1941. Thanks. Nobs01 04:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Borghese

It would seem that the article doesn't mention that Angleton, while in Italy in the late WWII, was responsible of saving Junio Valerio Borghese from the partisans, the establishment of the local stay-behind Operation Gladio and the organisation of rat-lines to expatriate war criminals from Europe. Shouldn't it be mentioned? --Tridentinus 10:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited claims

I know nothing about this subject, but I noticed some uncited allegations added by 202.138.134.251 in diff=34086004&oldid=34085315. Someone should probably peer review this, and provide some references and attribution. Thanks. Haakon 11:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for consistency?

I'm no expert on the subject matter (or on Wikipedia come to that!) but, on looking at this article following today's airing of "The Plot against Harold Wilson" on the BBC here in the UK, and then trying to find out more, I have come across an apparent discrepancy between this and another article which may need to be addressed.

Here it is stated, under the heading "Legacy" and in referring to the then current 'mindset' that: "Agency and intelligence community generally had, in particular, seriously underestimated strategic nuclear strength in Central Europe in their National Intelligence Estimate. The Team B analysis was shown to be the more accurate (my italics) of the two estimates"

In contrast the article on Team B [[1]]states of Team B's analysis: "This information was later proven to be false. (Again, my italics) According to Dr. Anne Cahn (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-1980) "I would say that all of it was fantasy... if you go through most of Team B's specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong."

I don't know enough about US intelligence matters or recent history to comment further (though for me the Team B article rings truer and seems more factual) but, while I accept we are all entitled to differences of opinion, I do believe it is in the interests of Wikipedia credibility to be as consistent across articles as possible. Could someone with more authority edit (or at least annotate) the articles to try and clarify (or as a minimum, highlight) this apparent polarity of views?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herra (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 March 2006

[edit] Excessive redlinks

I have counted eight redlinks: is/are eight redlinks excessive?Phase4 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro needs work

The intro is gushing with praise, which may or may not be warranted (I know little about the subject). However, it isn't written in a very encyclopedic tone, and could use some citations. --Impaciente 01:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Bleh, intro does have some interesting phrasing in it, particularly: "Considered by many within the intelligence profession as the single most polarizing, most controversial, and admittedly most revered spymaster bar none...". Besides being POV, he was never really regarded much as spymaster; he worked counterintelligence for the vast majority of his career in the field (as described in the article). Hell, he even had a reputation for instituting policies in the CIA that kept the real intel officers from doing their job. Shadowrun 05:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angleton's resignation

The article does not give the date when Colby fired him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006 68.123.26.171 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 December

I think he was fired on the 24th of December, 1974. Johnyang2 06:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Increasing paranoia

This section is almost incomprehensible, particularly the last several sentences (or more accurately fragments). The section heading is not sufficiently neutral in tone, nor is it suitable giving the content. I suggest the section be redacted completely until better scholarship can be applied. ENScroggs 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) The section; is naturaly going to be hard to understand given its subject matter. It is; in "Spy" terminology an extremely contentious issue. I; merely tried to point out, as calmly, as humanly possible, that the guy was not wrong; & anyone, sane; left stranded, in the "Nazi" remit of Manchester University [uk], in the modern day; is suffering, directly as a result of James Jesus Angleton, being ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.220.253 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 April 2007

[edit] Henry Crumpton

Does any one notice that the former Chief of the CIA's counterterrorist center, Henry Crumpton, who is now the US State Department Coordinator on Counterterrorism, looks like Angleton? Both are wiry, tall and have that gravelling voice.Johnyang2 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not "immediately clear"

"When Philby's close associates in Britain's Most Secret Services, MacLean and Burgess, defected, it was immediately clear that Philby had staged a massive and unprecedented long-term espionage ring in both the US and the U.K, directly under the noses of the finest minds in Counter-Intelligence available, including Angleton."

It was not "immediately clear" that Philby had staged a ring or was even a traitor. Although he was suspected, the Foreign Secretary Harold Macmillan told the House of Commons in 1955 that Philby was not a traitor. (See Wikipedia article on Kim Philby.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)