Talk:James Jesus Angleton

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

John Simkin's "Spartacus" website is, imho, a generally "The-CIA-Killed-JFK" website. Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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.) —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   It's reassuring that this section led to no further outcry: perhaps the lack of AGF that is inherent in the evidence-free use of the term "whitewash" was taken at face value. If the evoked but unsupported "Solid evidence [that] apparently [emphasis added] exists" were a significant aspect of JJA's career, we should have been encouraged to consult that evidence, e.g., by linking to our article on UFO conspiracy theories.
--Jerzy•t 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, agree. --Massintel (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Excessive redlinks

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

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)

Starting a sentence with "hell" or "heck" is the equivalent of comparing your opponent to Hitler. It means you suck at debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

I removed the reference to George H.W. Bush as one of the DCI who trusted him, since he was fired by William Colby who was DCI before Bush

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

Possible addition to Paranoia section

It's worth checking out the book "Targeted by the CIA" - it's written by a man who was ultimately forced out of the agency as a result of Angleton's paranoia. It's a great look into the CIA and offers a valuable perspective about the true story behind what it meant to be "under investigation" by the director of the CIA, and shows you how little evidence they really had for investigating these people. Perhaps here, it may be a story worth telling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.247.210 (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Final years and death?

Currently, the biography ends with Angleton's resignation in December of 1975. But it says nothing about his death other than the date (May 12, 1987).

At a minimum, the biography should summarize the circumstances of his death. Better yet, the "Resignation" section should be followed by a new section, "Final Years and Death".

Karl gregory jones (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Date of death?

According to Find a Grave, Angleton died May 11, 1987:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6379756

I don't know the fact of the matter.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

classic Wikipedia

"and intelligence community generally had, in particular..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.115.212 (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I just finished a complete edit of this page, editing for NPOV. I removed all of the "fan boy" content that made previous versions of this entry nearly unreadable. Another editor with some of the standard references on the intelligence community at hand needs to make a pass to add citations.

Estéban (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Esteban. Your work is appreciated by those of us who wish to see a world without population or mind control. Did i say mind control? I meant to say it in latin: MENT GOVERN (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mental)

ResearchALLwars (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture - reference to JFK and MJ12

Given that the mention is a) unreferenced and b) refers to the disputed Majestic 12 the reference to Angleton and JFK fails WP:V, so I'll remove it.Autarch (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Family jewels

what is that suppose to mean? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_jewels_%28Central_Intelligence_Agency%29 98.246.45.165 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Home Address

"They lived at 4814 North 33rd Road, in the Rock Spring neighborhood, of Arlington, Virginia.[5]"

Public Records cited on Zillow show the property changing hands in 2005. Since the reference here [5] is his widow's obit (d. 2011), I find no corollary evidence that James Jesus Angleton lived at this address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.45.165 (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Arlington County Property Records show this is the correct address. The house was built in 1949. It was first owned by James & Cecily Angleton, and then by Cecily Angleton (via will) until it was sold to the current owners in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.29.206 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Additional sources

There is an additional source that I would recommend. Michael Collin Piper's book Final Judgment. He talks at length about Angleton's involvement in the CIA when Kennedy was killed. Piper also refers to a monument in Israel for Angleton (with a picture).50.129.215.9 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Gladio

His role there should be more or less clear nowadays.--93.184.26.78 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede

The introductory paragraph makes JJA sound like a milquetoast minor bureaucrat, lacking any reference to the key historical events he is linked with or the controversies around his historical legacy. Krobison13 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Give my regards to Angleton

   I'm rewording "the high regards given to Angleton" to "the high regard shown for Angleton", bcz "Give my regards to [a third party]" is highly idiomatic (& in my amateur opinion all dictionaries probably should treat the plural usage as requiring a separate definition) with the specific meaning "Please act as my messenger to [the third-party mutual acquaintance], by mentioning that i thot favorably of [them] as i recalled that you were likely to encounter them soon." That explains the song title "Give My Regards to Broadway" (which surely refers to the portion of Broadway (Manhattan) that includes the Broadway theatre district), and whose next lyrics are "Remember me to Herald Square" (a perhaps idiomatic usage of the verb, BTW, that my family of origin never used).
--Jerzy•t 00:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a change along the lines you seem to have intended. I also added the corresponding missing sense at Wiktionary (which also misses other sense of wikt:regard. DCDuring (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for responding; i checked to be sure i'd delivered on that edit, found it absent from my contribs, and had started looking at the many occurrences of "regard..", trying to find the bad one..... Ha!
--Jerzy•t 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why his middle name in article title?

I thought it was strange when I saw the article listing his middle name (Jesus) as he was never referred by it or signed his name with it, per this academic lecture source (minute 33 to minute 34). Shouldn't his middle name be removed in the title? --115.92.159.28 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't generally title articles according to the person's own choice; rather we try and find the most common usage in reliable sources and go with that. I haven't done a search on this particular person, nor will i, though you are welcome to and then present your results, if you so choose. I will say, though, in my personal opinion (i.e., anecdotally, and not a reliable source) no matter what he called himself, he is extremely frequently referred to with the middle name included; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe that's because Angleton is, unfortunately, reviled by most "espionage writers" and former CIA operations officers, and they get their "digs" at him by always writing (or saying) James JESUS Angleton, rather than what he called himself, "James J. Angleton," "James Angleton," or "Jim Angleton." Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

He was known as "Jesus James Angelton" sometimes people use 3 names like John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald for example. --Massintel (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Statement: You've misspelled his last name. Question: He was known (and referred to) as "James JESUS Angleton" by whom? Answer: His detractors, mostly. Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Nosenko's Three Lie Detector Exams

The source for your statement, "Under great duress, Nosenko failed two highly questionable lie detector tests but passed a third test monitored by several Agency departments," is author Gerald Posner, who, seemingly desperate to exonerate Nosenko and thereby prove that the KGB, just as Nosenko said, had absolutely nothing to do with Lee Harvey Oswald in the USSR, befriended Nosenko in 1992. The truth is, the first and second tests were given to Nosenko in 1964 and 1966, respectively, by the Soviet Russia Division (aka Soviet Bloc Division), and the third one was given to him under the authority of probable (according to former high-level Army intelligence analyst and NSA officer John M. Newman) KGB "mole" Bruce Solie in the CIA's Office of Security, with help from the FBI. Newman's research colleague, British researcher Malcolm Blunt, has pointed out in a 2022 YouTube interview (on the subject of Nosenko) and in Newman's 2022 book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole," that America's foremost polygraph expert, Richard O. Arther, viewed the polygraph questions and responses at CIA headquarters, and concluded that of the three tests, the second one was the most reliable, and that the third one (Solie's) was not only "atrocious," but one of the worst examinations he'd ever seen. Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)