Talk:Richard Helms

Title?

|This article referrs to Helms as both "Director of the C.I.A." and "head of the Central Intelligence Agency". Is the appropriate title for both not Director of Central Intelligence?

Acegikmo1 15:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

X?

I'm fairly certain there is no basis for Helms as the inspiration for 'X' in JFK. The inspiration was, in fact, L._Fletcher_Prouty. They even included a Prouty interview on the JFK DVD. So, I'm removing this

bselig

Thanx for the update... You're right. I stand corrected. Chilkoot

Changes made to Helm's uppbringing from a copy I have on Helms autobiaography: Looking over my shoulder, 2003 -nerox21

Deceptive Language

"Helms' ultimate undoing was the CIA role in the subversion of Chilean socialist government and the overthrow, under Nixon's orders, of that country's socialist president Salvador Allende in 1973. Helms had reportedly opposed this operation."

This is deceptively stated. According to Helms [and other sources] the overthrow of Allende occurred completely independently of CIA or other US influence. Nixon made a last ditch effort to stop Allende's designation as president [Allende received a plurality of the vote and became president of Chile only when the Chilean Congress chose him over the second place finisher]. But after Allende's inauguration, the US took no further action. Pinochet acted on his own. I'll get the reference from Helm's memoir, A Look Over My Shoulder 203.84.191.125 11:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made changes to the Chilean coup section, following Helm's remarks in his book. Shirokuma1 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant tidbit about Chile and Allende

The article currently states some information which may be some irrelevant POV:

"Nixon continued to work against the Allende regime, including disruptive economic measures. Yet Allende had been elected with only 36% of the vote in a three-way contest, and during his presidency he was said to ignore the constitution in his socialist projects, policies which proved to be very unpopular and polarizing. Of course, the military junta's 1973 coup was more unconstitutional yet."

It is immaterial whether Allende was unpopular or polarizing. "Yet Allende had been elected with only [...]" seems POV to support meddling, but is actually irrelevant. What matters from the perspective of this article is just the first line: that the Nixon administration and the CIA were working against the democratically elected government of Chile. Any additional detail is unwarranted speculation. 201.231.81.53 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Scope of Article and POV Issues

• NB: I have deleted my comments from August 1 & 11 2012, as I now regret posting them. (They are, of course, still available in the page history.) Some of my concerns regarding the length and scope of this biography were addressed when material on Helms's "Early career" was split into a separate article, which has since been redirected (mistakenly, in my view). Despite what I wrote at the time, I have come to greatly respect Elfelix's work crafting what is easily Wikipedia's best-researched biography on any Director of Central Intelligence (probably including the GA George H. W. Bush—although any comparison would be apples-to-oranges insofar as Helms's tenure at the Agency was of far greater consequence than Bush's).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep on insisting so strongly that the death toll from Pinochet is irrelevant to this article. It's hugely relevant and about the only important post-coup piece of information for most readers. We can't tell them how directly Helms or the CIA affected the coup, but we can tell them the consequences.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The huge additions to the Mossadegh section are a violation of standard policy, although they are well-sourced and neutral. The sheer fact that Helms worked in the CIA at the time doesn't mean this history belongs in his biography. No other CIA biography is written like this.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This brief note here today marks my first familiarity with this subtitle in Talk, "Scope of Article and POV issues". Some comments that may once have hit the mark in fact are already modified. While I both agree and disagree with both the opinions and accuracy of its reading, I can appreciate the thought and consideration that is evidenced here. The life of Helms is chiefly of interest because of his role in the CIA, both what he did there and what he thought about it. Context is very important. The understanding of the person who Helms was depends on it. A truncated and neutered picture is not the best methodology, but rather implies its own POV. "A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson. With the possible exception of Allen Dulles, the CIA career of Richard Helms and his years as DCI constitute the most important biography in CIA history. If a shorter, bare-bones version is desired, a person can skim or skip sections--but not vice versa. Elfelix (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Can we nominate this article for a Good Article? It looks like it meets all of the criteria. It is well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and contains many relevant images with suitable captions. Catauro (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It needs a lot of clean-up. Especially, there are far too many extraneous and unnecessary photos of persons who are mentioned only in passing in the text, and who have no major role in this article. Sam Ervin? Angleton? Why? --Michael K Smith^Talk 15:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

pov in lead

TheTimesAreAChanging has undid my edit - I'd like to discuss this, please. I think that the following sentence: "He might express strong opinions over a decision under review, yet he was a 'team player' and the President had the final say." is a bit of white-washing. While trivially true in a technical sense (the President always has the final say, that's what he is President for), it doesn't belong in the lead. Perhaps in a further section. The lead needs to explain what the subject of the article is famous for, not to indulge in discussion about him.

Thoughts about this? Bazuz (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

My objection was that you removed other content as well, offered no edit summary, and replaced it with grammatically incorrect text.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit in haste. So let's do this one step at a time. Do you object to my removing only the said sentence and only it? (I'll ask later about other proposed changes)? Bazuz (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I have no particular objection.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The content of the sentence that is in question here derives, I believe, directly from Thomas Powers, an author of several books in the intelligence field, a respected voice and one very knowledgeable of CIA history and of Helms in particular. Thus, the content here is more a learned conclusion, based on a thoughtful consideration of the entire record, rather than "a bit of whitewashing". It may be "pow" in abstract theory, but its normative substance is that of an authroitative source. In the context of the article introduction, it provides a balance to his (perhaps heavily politicized) conviction for perjury.

These issues are addressed briefly the subsection "Enhanced CIA Powers" where Helms' comments are presented as to how he understood the CIA operated under the President, as opposed to the "wink and nod" rogue agency interpretation advanced by the respected author Tim Weiner. As Helms states, however, the CIA's secret nature ethically complicates the picture. Yet Helms, although functioning within CIA protocol, apparently has acted on the edge, at least regarding the "mind-control program" (still 'under construction' in this article) which he later regretted (I write here without reviewing prior 'in-process' research). Altough Helms may be for a few a "famous" icon of the lawless official, in fact the man Helms was evidently more a team player who understood that the President (including Nixon) did call the shots (see footnotes to the "Enchanced CIA powers" subsection). Elfelix (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on restoring the text or proposing a revised version of it?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A fair statement, acknowledging the complexities of history and the diversity of readership, might read: "Helms understood his career role as being one who might express strong opinions over a decision under review, yet as a team player within the agency, where the President had the final say." The fine tuning here seems to me to be not required, yet not excluded. Elfelix (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Jail?

I lack an explanation why Richard Helms did not spend the last 30 years of his life in a maximum security jail. His involvement in and the destruction of evidence regarding Project MKUltra alone should be enough. 190.113.144.159 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

i agree. that is why i came to this page--to find out what, if anything, had come of his destruction of government documents/evidence. not only was this not even TOUCHED ON in this VERY LONG article, but section 5 ("Intelligence...") also did not really address why his perjury before Congress resulted in, essentially, no punishment.

i mean, i understand that when he lied, he thought he should; and that a lot of people agreed with that conclusion. still, it would be nice to read here more about it than, (paraphrase):

"he believed he did everything correctly and for the right reasons. a lot of people agreed with him. he was caught in a 'no-man's land' because the american public was slowly moving away from the ideal of 'the ends justify the means,' and 'some are just, out of necessity, above the law,' to 'the law applies equally to all' (among other things). sadly, the law about lying before Congress was too well-revered for him to avoid been called on that. he received a slap on the wrist for it, and his Agency peers supported him no matter what, with the exception of one guy, who still called him 'honorable.' oh yeah, the judge scolded him. later, everyone got over it, and he got the recognition as 'hero' that he had always thought he deserved."

here's some questions--did ANYONE argue the opposite? namely, that perjury was NOT a simple matter to be brushed off? if so, who, how, and why did nothing come of it? did ANYONE, at ANY TIME, bring up the destruction of documents/government property/evidence, and the possibility of prosecution of that? if so, who, how, and why did nothing come of it? if not, why not?

more--with what was he actually charged? why did it take 2 years for perjury(?) charges to be filed? (relates to my comments 2 paragraphs below.) did the judge have other sentencing options? since the judge's comments were harsh regarding helms's conduct, it seems strange that he gave such a light sentence. in the last para., at what function was he speaking when he 'received a hero's welcome'?

i made some proofreading edits. i also made a new paragraph to TRY to highlight the prosecution. i mean, there's a section titled "Court, aftermath" and it isn't until the end of the 3rd paragraph that WHY is even mentioned. the previous is all set-up for why he got a get-out-of-jail-free card. there should be an addition here of what, exactly, the charge was. it would also be nice/helpful to know what the penalty was for the actual charge, so a comparison can be made to what was actually delivered.

it also seems relevant that a new administration was in office when charges were filed. yes, i know this is mentioned as a throw-off fact in the next section, but...the fact that there was a new administration that had nothing to do with nixon and his views of appropriate USG isn't rather quite relevant to the section on the legal aspects of the life of this man?? there are other questions, but i'll put them in a new section, if i can remember them after reading thru all this. not sure if anyone cares anyway, as the guest's question above was never addressed.Colbey84 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Article split

This article because of its size has manifestly become difficult to maneuver. A split into two articles at a point carefully considered apparently is in order. No text or categories need be sacrificed and, e.g., the WikiProject banners moved to the new talk pages. It would be appropriate to leave a disambiguation-style page at Richard Helms, indicating the new locations of the text. The two new articles, split roughly half-way through at the end of the Kennedy Presidency, are titled: Richard Helms, early career, and Richard Helms, DCI and Ambassador. Elfelix (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

While it is common to split out overly long articles into sub-articles, accepted practice is to use summary style to summarise the contents of the sub-articles in the main articles, rather than completely gutting the main article and moving absolutely everything to sub-articles. Hut 8.5 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Accordingly the sub-article on his early career, and applying the summary style as understood. Elfelix (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than a split, the current article should just be massively condensed. It has 158kb of prose, and 100 is already way too much. I can barely load it as is. Wizardman 21:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Support split - I support splitting the article. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Split per above summary style. Elfelix (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Summarise not split - I agree with Hut 8.5 & Wizardman that an attempt should be made first to (massively or partially) summarise the article before splitting it up, although it won't be a walk in the park, so to speak. I mostly contribute to aerospace related articles, but I'd be willing to help out as I've just finished some work on 2 Soviet space related articles and could now devote some time to other things, even though there are other Aerospace articles that need attention. ☭Soviet☭ (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Although this thread may be dead, I am not a fan of the current split. In my opinion, there is enough material here and in Career of Richard Helms that a possibly better way to split would be something like this:

==Truman presidency==

Main article: Career of Richard Helms during the Truman presidency

==Eisenhower presidency==

Main article: Career of Richard Helms during the Eisenhower presidency

==Kennedy presidency==

Main article: Career of Richard Helms during the Kennedy presidency

==Johnson presidency==

Main article: Career of Richard Helms during the Johnson presidency

==Nixon presidency==

Main article: Career of Richard Helms during the Nixon presidency

==Ambassador to Iran==

Main article: Ambassadorship of Richard Helms

- Location (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

ouch

The second paragraph of the introduction to this article is horrible. So vague and information-less, waffling back and forth, sounds like something I wrote as a freshman in high school.

Removed Edits of a Banned Editor's Sock that were out of place in this article

In order to ensure accuracy and integrity of the editing process I reverted all the edits here of the sock 178.216.122.254 of the banned editor Irongron. I was away from editing due to obligations and missed what what happening until much later. I looked over the edits and determined this was the best course of action for this article. Please see the banned editor's sock investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=618034898#A_Very_Strong_Probable_Sock_of_an_editor_you_permanently_banned_in_April_2014_User:IRoNGRoN The IP 178.216.122.254 and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... are both socks of ☭Irongron☭User talk:IRoNGRoN

Additionally the edit seemed out of place and was promoting of Irongron's obsession with his pet project the A-12. The deployment of a couple of aircraft was not a highlight of the Tuesday Luncheons. 208.54.35.169 (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Helms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512181920/http://www.utdallas.edu/library/uniquecoll/speccoll/Leeker/123b.pdf to http://www.utdallas.edu/library/uniquecoll/speccoll/Leeker/123b.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Section 5

there are many instances throughout this section where i cannot tell if a statement is actually backed up by a citation several sentences later, or if it/they are opinions of wiki writers and editors. there are too many to list.

a specific comment on the sub-section "Year of intelligence" - as i read thru this section, i was confused, because it seemed to be more than 1 year that was being discussed. not until the very last sentence of the section was it made a bit clearer. i would suggest either moving that sentence to the top of the section, or making the title "Year of Intelligence - 1975" or "The 'Year of Intelligence'" or "The 'Year of Intelligence' - 1975".Colbey84 (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Placed on queue for future review. Thank you for comments. Elfelix (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External link to interview on nuclear policy?

Would an interview with Richard Helms from 1986 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_4DCA2FEDD38B4920B0FA048ED4B6C72D (I helped with the site, so it would be conflict of interest for me to just add it.) Mccallucc (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Indonesia

No mention of CIA/Indonesia. Mentioned in gruesome "The Act Of Killing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.193.26 (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The documentary mentioned Helms specifically?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos of others

There are many unnecessary photos of persons who are mentioned only in passing in the text, and who have no major role in this article. Why? Should we delete some? —usernamekiran (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tone/voice

This article has such a strange tone. Clearly one individual has written a great deal of it. In particular, the word "yet" is overused, appearing at the beginning of sentences like a tic. There is also far too much analysis for an encyclopedia article—lots of "probablys" and "nonethelesses," etc. 148.75.218.85 (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)