Talk:CIA drug trafficking allegations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merged with more extensive article

Sourcd material in this article is now in the drug sections of CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities. I don't have all the books in the reading list and thus can't source from them.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think both this and CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities are worthwhile subjects, but they are quite distinct and it appears that much if not most of the material in the latter article may be more appropriate for this article. I also think that "CIA drug trafficking" as a title for this article oversimplifies the realities of "CIA complicity in the drug trade." - Kent Heiner (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose merge. The CIA distributing drugs to fund arms deals is not an "anti-drug" or "anti-crime" activity. Gigs (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely do not merge. csloat (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Levine

Former DEA agent michael levine, a nationally renowned investigator (and one of the few DEA agents to be assigned to "deep cover" operations abroad -- operations that are very sensitive as they almost categorically risk the life of the undercover agent), has written in several places that, in the course of his bolivian investigation, he uncovered much evidence that CIA participated with the Roberto Suarez cartel, and CIA agent the ex-SS Nazi Klaus Barbie, in assisting the Bolivian "Cocaine Coup" of 1980 to install another Operation-Condor military government in place of Bolivia's pre-coup civilian government (historians have referred to this coup as one of the bloodiest, if not the bloodiest, in Bolivia's history (thanks largely to the work of CIA asset Klaus Barbie and his "Los Novios" swastika-bearing death squads), which is no small feat given that there have been several coups in Bolivia. The book Cocaine Politics seems to corroborate this with several other findings unrelated to Levine's investigations. This deserves a mention on the page, coming as it does from a rather reliable and esteemed source. 184.74.182.190 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

CIA position

The CIA's website continues to deny that the organization has ever trafficked drugs. Obviously this is a bald-faced lie, as anyone with elementary knowledge of history surely recognizes. But shouldn't we at least mention in the article that they continue to deny these acts? 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the line "Regardless despite what many believed at the time it is extremely unlikely that the CIA was responsible for the crack epidemic entirely." This is editorializing. The writer of the article has no standing to make this assertion, as s/he is not God. 67.180.44.133 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of sources and article validity

This article seems like a whitewash to me. The CIA has been involved in the trafficking of both heroin and cocaine in its assistance of various counterinsurgency groups in Southeast Asia and in Central America. I have some data to support this, but it is currently in storage. For starters, check the Covert Action Information Bulletin. See also: The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. User:Moly 19:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This page has been massacred - It was at least 5 pages long, and now has been completely demolished. Is there any way to revert it back to what it used to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis Posada (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 May 2007‎ (UTC)

I tried to revert the page back to its original form, but I completely screwed up, being a new user. If anyone else knows how to change the article back to its original 5+ pages, please do so. Thanks, Luis Posada 02:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like some idiot with a 5th grade education came in here and re edited it to be goverment friendly. Please redo this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.71.248 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone show where it used to be 5+ pages? I'm going through the history and I don't see it, but it does seem alarmingly stub-like to me too. csloat (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also needs the French Connection. LamontCranston (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This page cites very poor sources. Silverpeak barely exists and is a publisher of conspiracy books. This page could certainly use more credible sources. A3camero (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Article comes off as though it's been written by conspiracy nuts to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.222.89 (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)‎

In response to the comment that "Article comes off as though it's been written by conspiracy nuts to me." .... CIA drug trafficking is extensively documented, not only by scholars (let alone reputable journalists -- some of whom, such as Alan Nairn, Al Giordano, and Charles Bowden, have won awards for such reportage), but also by agents of the US government itself -- particularly DOJ agencies such as the FBI and CIA, who have been one of the leading investigative sources on information regarding CIA drug trafficking. If this page *were* to get into the conspiracy stuff, beyond that initial bulk of well-researched and verified cases, the article would be many times longer. It seems judiciously minimal to me. The topic clearly merits its own page and attempts to delete it in the face of so much obvious documentation, under the guise of accusing "conspiracy nuts" without substantiation, would only appear to be a cheap whitewash attempt to me. 74.102.158.68 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Necessary revisions

This article needs a lot of work. The title was changed to "allegations of CIA drug trafficking", which is appropriate given the sparse evidence currently presented. IMO the article should be "CIA drug trafficking", but for this move to be appropriate we need to clearly differentiate between which instances are confirmed by reliable sources and which instances are merely allegations. There's no shortcut to this goal—it's just going to take some research. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am as keen as the next to see the CIA indicted for any drug trafficking for which they're responsible, but you're right - absent reliable sources, the fact that the CIA's drug-trafficking involvement remains "alleged" should be reflected in the article title. Hopefully we can do the work though and confirm their guilt! Azx2 04:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

RELIABLE NYTIMES SOURCE?

Can we remove the word "allegations" from the title of this article w/ the inclusion of these sources?

Anti-Drug Unit of C.I.A. Sent Ton of Cocaine to U.S. in 1990

By TIM WEINER

Published: November 20, 1993

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/20/world/anti-drug-unit-of-cia-sent-ton-of-cocaine-to-us-in-1990.html

"A Central Intelligence Agency anti-drug program in Venezuela shipped a ton of nearly pure cocaine to the United States in 1990, Government officials said today. No criminal charges have been brought in the matter, which the officials said appeared to have been a serious accident rather than an intentional conspiracy. But officials say the cocaine wound up being sold on the streets in the United States. One C.I.A. officer has resigned, a second has been disciplined and a Federal grand jury in Miami is investigating."

There's also this:

Saturday, 28 July 2012 10:45

CIA “Manages” Drug Trade, Mexican Official Says

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12247-cia-manages-drug-trade-mexican-official-says

With this can we rename the article to remove the "allegations" from the title?

Thoughts, folks? Azx2 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

YES, Remove "allegations" from title. Some editors are removing content only because it does not meet the proof standard of CIA involvement in transporting drugs. If if it meets the standard of proof that the allegation was made, content should be included. That does not appear to be happening at present. Change it.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It was the consensus at the 2012 AFD that the article be renamed to the current title. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the move (title change) is likely to be controversial please use {{requested move}} if you wish to pursue this route, although I think it's a waste of time because nothing spectacular has happened in this controversy since last year. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An explanatory story for the willing

The brain says to the ear: I need you to listen to everything. How you do that, I don't care. Here's the moneys.

When the moneys ended, the brain says to the ear: I still need you to listen to everything. You should provide for the expenses. How you do that, I don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.208.251 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Chip Tatum

Dois Gene "Chip" Tatum Jr. may seem like it uses an unreliable source(s) at first glance. However the author is notable as a covert agent in Cambodia, tortured and was charged with treason for the Central America activity. The three sources are 1. Published, 2.from a notable source, and in the case of the flight plans and other documentation which the agency attempted to recover, also 3. reliable, verifiable, archived, and online.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether something is online and archived is irrelevant. Sources need to be reliable, third-party sources. Primary sources are to be avoided (see WP:PRIMARY). The Nexus (magazine) source is a secondary source but it is not reliable. It is quite clearly a fringe publication with no evidence of a responsible editorial policy. The third source is a first-hand, self-published account. Self published sources are almost never acceptable (see WP:SPS), and certainly not in this case. The second source, a YouTube video uploaded by "GrassyKnollTrolls" is also unacceptable - this is a primary source. You need reliable secondary sources that can evaluate and comment on the claims made in interviews and personal narratives. GabrielF (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GabrielF on this. I'm actually sympathetic to the information going in the article, but the sourcing for something like this has to be impeccable. Rivertorch (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I hear you. however, we are talking about verifiable allegations which is the title of the entry not impeccable proof of each alleged event. The Nexus Magazine citation was included only because it was published. That makes it verifiable. It was not the source of information. I used the persons self published information as a source about himself where further verifiable material (documents, flight logs, letters, records) are available. Nexus Magazine was a published secondary source to show that the primary source(s) had actually been published. That is a Wikipedia requirement for using Primary sources that are not about themselves. In this case however the self published primary source WAS a source about himself AND it had also been published. Therefore, the use of all three sources together was perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia Standards. I only included a sentence to say he made public accusations related to the topic of the article and included nothing extraordinary in my sentence about his claims and accusations requiring an impeccable/ unimpeachable source. Since the article is about accusations rather than confirmation I think It should be included because the fact that this person made accusations is easily verified by his own public admissions and in published material.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, what brought me here in the first place was this thread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Sorry, I thought that had been linked here already. You may wish to comment there. Rivertorch (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Re-added the content based on the discussion referenced above.Johnvr4 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly explained to you, you can't take multiple unreliable sources and magically combine them into a reliable source. GabrielF (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained to you I only need one citation as the source of the information. I have two. One is Primary and one is secondary. The Primary is fine as long as it can be verified by anyone looking at it and is not the source for the entire entry. The secondary is fine because it was published even if you do not believe the publisher. The fact that this type of allegations was made by this person is reliable because it is Verifiable to anyone who looks. There is no combination of sources required. Add your opinion as an entry on the Nexus magazine entry that they anything they publish on any subject is totally unreliable as a source for Wikipedia and cite a reliable source for that. Your position is not supportable. Mine is supportable even if ultimately that particular source is not. The content should stay and the discussion about this content is here. The discussion about the whether the Nexus source should be included is elsewhere. The StewWebb source in used in this article. He has the same content on Tatum as Nexus. Is that source appropriate?Johnvr4 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep arguing with you. These are lousy sources and every editor who has looked at the issue has concluded that they are unacceptable. That there are other lousy sources in this article is not an excuse to introduce new ones. You are the only editor who wants to introduce this fringe material. GabrielF (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tatum is mentioned in relation to Barry Seal's murder in a book by Daniel Hopsicker, "Barry & the Boys: The CIA, The Mob and America's Secret History," pp. 375-376. Includes more references on this subject. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/03/1199001/-Jeb-Bush-Oliver-North-and-the-Murder-of-CIA-Drug-Smuggler-Barry-Seal-in-1986

More self-published supporting info is the STATEMENT by Lt.Col James Bo Gritz, USA (Ret)for U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs Committee, International Narcotics Control Task Force. Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. Tuesday, 30 June 1987. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://ncoic.com/heroin-4.htm. Look hard enough, there is a impeccable and reliable and official copy of this information somewhere else.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've searched for this myself hoping to find some WP:RS (newspaper or history book) that would have at least mentioned Tatum in connection to this affair. Alas, there there doesn't seem be any. So Tatum's story will probably have to be left out of the article for now. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

However, I found this conviction for fraud, which undermines Tatum's credibility a fair bit. It might explain why serious journalists kept away from him, despite the bazillion articles on the Iran-Contras affair in general. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tatum was convicted of financial fraud in relation to management of a golf course years after the subject of this entry. Gene and Nancy Tatum, were convicted of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.   The conspiracy had two objects:  (1) making a false statement for the purpose of influencing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1007;  and (2) defrauding and embezzling money from the FDIC in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.   Both defendants were also convicted of the substantive violation of section 1007.

There was a bit of a interesting "mistake" on the fraud charges he faced which was very bizarre to say the least- Treason charges?!? He also made a sworn declaration and allegedly provided further of drug running (in the form of an audio tape) given to the judge in his appeal of his criminal conviction.

May 4, 1996 COUNTY JAIL INMATE FACING MYSTERIOUS CHARGE OF TREASON By David Sommer Tribune Staff Writer; May 7, 1996

TREASON DROPPED FROM CHARGES LIST Ex-military man now faces fraud-embezzlement count By David Sommer Tribune Staff Writer http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread371822/pg2

North who testified the Reagan knew about these activities was convicted when the central conspiracy charges were dropped due to classified-information problems. The convictions were aiding and abetting obstruction of Congress, shredding and altering official documents, and accepting an illegal gratuity from Secord. Years later, his convictions were overturned after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony. Colby died, Reagan had to answer lawyers and North, Poindexter, retired; U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord and Albert Hakim were all charged with felony crimes. Which person involved this entire episode is credible (or even the most credible)?

Collection of Tatum info from Investigative Journalist http://lisaleaks.com/2013/12/07/chip-tatum-former-cia-operativeblack-ops-assassin-spoke-out-torturedmurdered/ *He turned up alive.

Why is this Tatum guy notable in the first place? read A presidents Darkest Secret (Operation Red Rock) http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/stuff/Gunderson/Nixon's%20Darkest%20Secret.pdf

Johnvr4 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

LA stuff is random

So the section about LA the first paragraph is on topic. Then it veers off into a paragraph about a random LAPD drug scandal that isn't related to the CIA allegations and then a couple of completely unsourced paragraphs about a supposed current distribution ring running out of Venice CA using CIA cocaine delivered weekly by LAPD. Which is not only slightly unlikely, but completely unsourced.

I am going to pull this. If someone has citations and wants to rewrite it into something useful, cool.

Judasblue (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Another source

Although the article mentions conspiracy theory, it links to more reliable sources Ron Paul Had Accurate Conspiracy Theory: CIA Was Tied To Drug TraffickersJohnvr4 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Not only is this section incomplete but it is not clear that the quote from McCoy's book refers to Afghanistan and not to the Golden Triangle which his book is mainly addressing. Needs to be expanded, properly documented, and reworked or removed.

A possible citable and notable source might be "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn and Jeff St. Clair. Andother possible citable source could be "The Nexus: International Terrorism and Drug Trafficking from Afghanistan" by Frank C. Shanty. A third source could be "Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism" by John Cooley. A fourth source could be "Seeds of Terror: How Drugs, Thugs, and Crime Are Reshaping the Afghan War" by Gretchen Peters. A fifth source could be "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina" by Peter Dale Scott.

Scanlyze (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed. The quote is clearly inaccurate, Afghanistan cannot possibly be described as being in SE Asia and Wikipedia's own entry on the cited source details the book's topic as being the drug trade in the Golden Triangle (Vietnam, Loas, Bruma) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.70.10 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

CIA Rendition/ drugs plane / “Operation Mayan Jaguar” / “Operation Mayan Express”

There were stories in the press a while ago, alleging that a plane that was believed to be a rendition plane had crashed with large amounts of drugs onboard. I'm not sure anything was truly proven, but there was a fair amount of mainstream coverage to this accusation that may be useful to this article.

It seems like this article is mostly written about historical cases, whereas there have been a few more recent allegations that should be covered. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulahulahulahula (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_aircraft

aircraft registered as 'N987SA' Hulahulahulahula (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MEXICO: Jet plane that crashed with 4 tons of cocaine tied to the CIA http://www.aztlan.net/cia_russian_mafia.htm

CRASH JET HAD AIR OF MYSTERY http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/item_sGZlL8BSzrNWePcgK7yC5K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.166.11 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought I read that two rendition planes crashed, each with several metric tons on Cocaine. There is also the guy who owned the 9/11 flight school being caught on his plane in Orlando with much Heroin.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is actually new information on this subject. There has been a raid on the owners of the planes which actually was a front for an undercover ICE operation called “Operation Mayan Jaguar.” or “Operation Mayan Express.” These were actual planes used in CIA rendition flights. The cocaine operations were sponsored by a U.S. government agency reportedly ICE/homeland security with a CIA connection or involvement.

http://www.madcowprod.com/2013/12/12/fort-lauderdale-florida-is-a-protestant-palermo/#more-5356

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/04/mexican-narco-trafficker-s-revelation-exposes-drug-war-s-duplicity

Also mentioned is another CIA episode worthy of mention in this entry: "In the early 1990s, the CIA ran a spook mission (the Guillen Episode referred to by Levine) allegedly designed to infiltrate Colombian narco-trafficking groups. The operation resulted in at least a ton of cocaine — some estimates put the figure much higher — entering the United States unchecked. The head of the DEA at the time, Robert Bonner, incensed at the CIA’s actions, which were carried out over DEA’s objections, went on national TV and essentially accused the CIA of engaging in drug trafficking. The CIA operation, which was carried out with the assistance of the Venezuelan National Guard under the direction of CIA asset General Ramon Guillen Davila, unraveled after U.S. Customs seized a load of the dope in Miami." 71.47.124.243 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The wikipedia rules are TLDR. I'm sure confirmation bias is in there though. Have you ever stayed in a hotel room? Congrats, you too have also rented an asset that has also been used for cocaine consumption. This implicates you in zero ways. Private jets that are available to lease are useful for a number of things. Transporting prisoners and cocaine among them. This does not imply the two are connected, only that being able to hail a taxi doesn't imply you understand what it occurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.64.16.12 (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sun Li-jen and drug trafficking

The article originally mentioned a Sun Li Ren. This is certainly Sun Li-jen. The material on Sun was added by an anonymous editor over a year ago, and claimed that "KMT general Sun Li Ren took charge of these [Golden Triangle] forces, which controlled a region in between Burma and Thailand, but were eventually forced out of the area." It also claimed that "The CIA later pressured Sun Li Ren to undertake a coup d'état in Taiwan against Chiang Kai-shek."

Needless to say, neither of these two ridiculous statements was supported by the references given, which did not mention Sun's name or anything about him. I have deleted the whole thing. Sun may be dead, but he does not deserve to be slandered in this way.

In addition, the current source for the remainder of the paragraph is STILL irrelevant to the paragraph's claims about the KMT and the CIA. The reference is to two pages from McCoy 1972, neither of which mentions the KMT. McCoy does mention "KMT" forces in the Golden triangle elsewhere in the book, mostly in chapter 7. Try looking there, but don't count on any of it making any sense. Just like the rest of this article. Rgr09 (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Iran-Contra section

This section originally began with the following lead: 'Released on April 13, 1989 the Kerry Committee report concluded that members of the U.S. State Department "who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking... and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers.' The problem here, yet again, is the failure to provide even the basics of a reference. This provided room to slip in a decapitated quote, with someone else's head gruesomely transfixed on top. The Kerry Committee did not state here or anywhere else that "members of the U.S. State Department who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking." Of course, when the real quote is put back in, the whole citation here becomes pointless, because the report does not support what the article wants to say. I don't know what to do about this, except let it sit there as just one more non-sequitur in Wikipedia, "countless as the sands of the sea." Rgr09 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph should be removed. Cherry-picking primary sources to build a case for something not stated by the sources is a violation of WP:SYNTH. - Location (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Prior to your edit, the material had been unchanged from the time is was inserted nearly eight and a half years ago.[1] - Location (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's depressing. Well, better late than never I guess. I need to give some thought on how to handle the Contra-cocaine claims before I zap any paragraphs, but I won't stand in the way if anyone else wants to. Perhaps merging the numerous short articles on this subject might produce an article with a little more substance. Rgr09 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

History has shown us that the responsibilities of the CIA have required them to work in conjunction with nefarious groups and individuals at times, including drug traffickers. I'm not convinced that knowing about a drug shipment and refusing to stop it or giving money to a dealer or supplier who may be an asset makes the CIA drug traffickers. Most of the material in this article is not alleging that the CIA trafficked drugs but rather that they had some link to people who trafficked drugs. One suggestion for a more neutrally titled article is CIA involvement with drug traffickers that would put CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking and Allegations of CIA drug trafficking all into one article. Webb's story and other conspiracy theories that have received mainstream coverage could be discussed with appropriate weight. - Location (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-titling the article sounds reasonable, but it looks like this has been discussed (and changed) before; I wonder how other editors will respond. If the title is changed, I suggest keeping the word "Allegations", especially if the article covers "conspiracy theories" (such as Peter Dale Scott). "Involvement with drug traffickers" is what the investigations and most reporting have come up with, but this omits people like Scott, who argues that the CIA is the mainspring behind all drug trafficking. Perhaps something even vaguer, like Allegations of CIA involvement in drug trafficking: a vague, formless title for a vague, formless subject. As to what to put in, perhaps the two articles you mention, the Kerry Committee report article, and maybe some discussion of the main writers arguing for CIA involvement, such as Alfred McCoy, Peter Dale Scott, and Gary Webb. Cockburn and St. Clair's book Whiteout also seems to have been an inspiration for the editors who added these articles.Rgr09 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

More source problems

This is really a daunting article to fix. For anyone who is interested in trying, here are some notes on some of the reference/sourcing problems:

lead paragraph

the Youngers-Rosin book cited in the lead does not support the claims made

Rodney Stich's book cited in the lead is not RS and does not support the claims made

Afghanistan section

the intro is incoherent and sourced to an interview with Alfred McCoy rather than news reports or any of the many books on Afghanistan

the long quote from McCoy (2003) is about Southeast Asia and the Golden Triangle, not about Afghanistan!

Golden Triangle section

no intro at all

McCoy (1991) is quoted at length in the endnote, but the quote has nothing to do with the KMT-CIA drug connection claimed in the text.

Iran-Contra section

Reference in the first paragraph is now accurate, but as noted above the whole paragraph is a long non-sequitur that doesn't support the article's claims

Gary Webb paragraph is missing a reference. In fact, a reference is not possible here, because the "Dark Alliance" newspaper series doesn't say what the text claims it said. Webb later expanded the series into a book that comes closer to saying some of these things.

The Ceppos column did not rebuke Webb's reporting; Ceppos acknowledged problems in the series and took responsibility for publishing the flawed material. Ceppos's column is available on-line and should be cited here instead of Tina Daunt's profile of Webb.

Michael Ruppert paragraph missing a citation; original citation was to a Guerrilla News Network video on youtube. The footnote that gave the Youtube link claimed the video had won "the 2003 Sundance Online Film Festival." The actual Sundance Film Festival website does not mention this film, and Wikipedia does not use Youtube videos as references.

Mena, Arkansas section

The intro is vague, confusing, and gives no sources

As noted above, the articles cited after the first paragraph are all misattributed and reject (or mock) most of the claims made about Mena as a CIA drug center, failing to support the article's claims again.

There are more problems in the remaining paragraphs as well. Rgr09 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Youngers/Rosin book states just we have stated in the preceding discussion, i.e. that the CIA knowingly had assets who were drug trafficker and as assets the CIA sometimes paid them or ignored their criminal activities. Stich appears to be stating the same thing, but the body of his work indicates that he is not a reliable source and should be removed. (Related discussion at: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Rodney Stich.) All of this is a bit different than the lede's nebulous statement that the CIA "has been involved in several drug trafficking operations". - Location (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

New lead

I have dropped the old lead completely. The new lead focuses on the sources for the claims of CIA drug involvement. I hope that a focus on the best known writers will filter out the one off claims that come from unknown or unreliable sources, and allow a more orderly presentation of the often violently polemical debate on this subject. The ultimate outcome of this approach is that the geographical structure of the article will go. I think this is necessary; there is simply not enough reliable material on whole countries to make this meaningful. In fact, it is clear that the whole article is driven by what the four main authors listed in the lead have written. If you feel that this new approach is wrong, please discuss here; try to propose an alternative method of fixing the article, I'm willing to work on the article, but its current form is such a mess that I don't really know what to do. Rgr09 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I am OK with what you have done; however, similar to what GabrielF pointed out in the 2012 Afd discussion, it's not clear to me what "allegations of CIA drug trafficking" actually means or encompasses. Per WP:ONEWAY, claims and allegations that have not been discussed in reliable secondary sources should not be included. This would be where I would start. Webb's allegations can certainly be included as they have been discussed by major mainstream sources. The first part of the article is built upon citations to McCoy, but I'm not finding much outside of the primary sources or fringe sources. It does appear that Alfred W. McCoy is built upon primary sources, too. I'd have to look a bit more closely at the others. - Location (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Ruppert

I have removed the paragraph on Michael Ruppert. Other than his verbal tirade at the community hearing Deutch attended in November 1996 and some things on his website, he did not contribute much to the allegations about CIA drug involvement. He was interviewed for the 1998 DOJ-OIG report on Webb's "Dark Alliance", the section on him is here under section 5C. The report's conclusion on Ruppert: "Based on our review, we believe that while Ruppert communicates his allegations fervently, they have no firm anchor in reality." Rgr09 (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The link above is an acceptable secondary source for a sub-section on the Contra-CIA angle. - Location (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet another article to consider for merge

In addition to Allegations of CIA drug trafficking, CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US, and the Kerry Committee report, there is still another related article: CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities. Despite the much broader sounding title, it covers almost exactly the same ground as this article. Strongly suggest merge here. Let me know your opinions. Rgr09 (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure yet. One or two editors voiced opposition to this in the 2012 Afd discussion. - Location (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Article revision

Thanks for prompt feedback from Location. Agree that the DOJ and CIA OIG reports on Webb's "Dark Alliance" claims are relevant and RS here; I have read them and will use them. McCoy 1972, 1991, and 2003 all have many problems. The Wikipedia articles on McCoy and his books do not come close to providing an adequate description of these problems. I will seek other sources for anything that concerns McCoy. That goes double for PDS, whose work, in my opinion, is at best on the borderline of conspiracy-theory, and sometimes far over the line. Yet UC Press published a couple of his books; interesting. Will not consider merging anything until there is more content in this article. Rgr09 (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: McCoy. So as not to give the idea that his allegations are unquestionably accepted, the CIA's unusual public denials of some of his claims should be mentioned (e.g. [2][3]). - Location (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously now? Maybe we should block American IPs from working on this article because it's absurd how POV this page is. We have such ridiculous articles as Mass killings under communism claiming that 100 million were mass murdered and then this article basically says "some nutty writers claim CIA travels drugs haha conspiracy theorists". Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do comment on the POV material that needs to be addressed. - Location (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Rewrite of Golden Triangle section

The standing text that was removed conflated CIA operations in Burma in the 1950s with their 1970s operations in Laos during the Laotian Civil War. Although there was a lengthy footnote quoting The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, the quoted text did not truly address the issue. As I do not have the above in hand (yet), I have rewritten the section dependent upon a CIA response that does happen to be in hand. As soon as I get Politics from the library, I will revisit this.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mexico section

This is another confused section, with the claims, connections, and sources all a mess. This section originally included a claim that Juan Matta-Ballesteros was a CIA "asset". The source given was not specified, instead a link was given to google books. This turned out to be Cockburn and St. Clair's book Whiteout, page 281, but the Google preview in fact stopped in the middle the passage. I finally checked the complete passage, and nowhere do they claim Matta was a CIA asset. The Wikipedia article on Juan Matta-Ballesteros does not make this claim either, nor have I found any other RS for this. I've deleted both the unformatted Google Book link and the asset claim. Rgr09 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Another problematic part of the Mexico section are the claims made based on a Peter Dale Scott article cited in the article, Washington and the politics of drugs, Variant, 2(11). Claims sourced to this article include such startling statements as that the Dirección Federal de Seguridad "was in part a CIA creation," that one-time DFS head Miguel Nazar Haro was a CIA asset, that the the Guadalajara Cartel "prospered largely, among other reasons, because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS" under Nazar, and so on. An article such as this is an inadequate source for such broad claims. I checked the article for Scott's sources; he cites his own book, "Cocaine Politics", written with Jonathan Marshall and published by the University of California Press. The UC press is a reliable publisher, but the book does not support any of these claims, or at least not on the pages Scott lists. This is a problem I have encountered with Scott before. I am deleting all claims derived from this article. Such claims require a real RS; a real RS give accurate citations. Note that the SAME claims, sourced from the SAME Scott article are made in close to a DOZEN Wikipedia articles. I will track these down and delete as well. Rgr09 (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The following paragraph also has problems:

The oldest Mexican Cartel, the Guadalajara cartel, was benefited by the CIA for having connections with the Honduran drug lord Juan Matta-Ballesteros. Matta was the head of SETCO, an airline used for smuggling drugs into the US and also used to transport military supplies and personnel for the Nicaraguan Contras, using funds from the accounts established by Oliver North.

The idea seems to be that because Matta-Ballesteros helped the CIA transport supplies to the Contras, as a courtesy to Matta, the ENTIRE Guadalajara cartel also received special treatment from the CIA. Neither of the two sources cited say any such thing. In addition, the source that is cited for the claim that funds paid to SETCO came from accounts established by Oliver North says no such thing. If it did, that would indicate that the CIA was NOT involved; rather, the NSC under North was. I've left in a revised version of the claim about Matta-Ballesteros involvement with SETCO, with a pointer to the article on MB as the main article. Claims that CIA gratitude to MB extended to every other drug trafficker in Mexico need multiple and substantial reliable sources. Rgr09 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead is completely OR

The lead is a complete original research and has to be fixed. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Allegiations, huh?

I understand a lot of CIA are operating on Wikipedia, but all you're doing here is making sure everyone knows it. If you want to be subtle, make the article dry and factual, otherwise it just makes Wikipedia as a whole look bad, and we don't want that, right? Cheerias 46.22.17.154 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The focus of this article, as the title states, is on claims that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking in some way. The Church Committee report on U.S. intelligence did not find this to be true of Southeast Asia, the Kerry Committee report did not find this to be true of drug trafficking in Central America, ditto the CIA-OIG, DOJ-OIG, and HPSCI reports on Contra drug smuggling in the United States and Nicaragua. The use of the word 'allegations' in the article is therefore well justified. Clarifying the claims made, and the investigations undertaken, would be much more useful than going on about 'CIA operating on Wikipedia.' Rgr09 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Kerry Committee Report in the lead

The lead was recently revised to add the claim that 'documented evidence confirms that the Federal Government has permitted illegal drug trafficking and media organizations have prematurely dismissed the allegations.' If this is meant to refer to the quote from the Kerry Committee Report cited below it, the quote comes nowhere near supporting the claim, which as far as I can tell is not in the Kerry Report at all. If it is referring to something else, please reinstate and specify. Whatever evidence that supports the claim should also be present in the article itself, since the lead is basically a synopsis of the article as a whole, not a place to introduce major material unsupported in the article's body. Rgr09 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The removed quote is also in Kerry Committee report which cites a cherry-picked version of the story at http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/contracoke.html; it is obviously not a reliable source. -Location (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Section on Mena

The Mena section has major problems. Of the five references for the paragraph on Russell Welch, one is a dead link, one is to a self-published book, one is from a newspaper report that claims, via a second hand story 17 years after the fact, and no longer available on line except through the Wayback machine, that Welch claimed he was poisoned with anthrax, and the final two, which are used to support the claim that Welch claimed his medical records were stolen after the attack, in fact mention nothing about Welch's claim. It would be hard to do worse for reliable references. Lacking reliable references, I have deleted the paragraph on Welch.

The main paragraph offers the claim that Clinton, Bush senior, Bush Junior, Jeb Bush, and a former Arkansas county prosecutor were all involved, in some way, in drug smuggling at Mena. While this claim has been made in various forms by various people about Clinton, the references given don't mention anything about any Bushes or prosecutors, and to top it off, the citations to the references are almost all incorrect in various details, citing the wrong authors in four out of four cases. Since Clinton is at least mentioned in one or two of these articles, I will leave him in for the time being, though it is a most dubious claim that almost no one believes, but the Bushes and prosecutor cannot be mentioned here without a reference, which I am not going to try to supply. Put them back in with a reliable source if you can find one, otherwise leave them out. I will fix the botched references when I have time. Rgr09 (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Fringe theories without discussion in reliable sources are not suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a platform for everyone that has some pet theory to push. - Location (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It creeped back in and I took it back out. The sourcing isn't usable for accusations against WP:BLPs (or anything, really) - one is to an editorial in the WSJ, which we can't cite for statements of fact, and the other cites are all to highbeam.com, which appears to be a blog and definitely doesn't pass WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Highbeam Research is a full-text subscription service. The links to it are actually to articles that appeared in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Give me a day or two and I'll give proper references to them. I agree that probably the editorial should go, unless its referenced to something relevant, such as public reactions to the Mena story. Rgr09 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Two of the sources still aren't usable (one is a dead link to an article that no longer seems to be available anywhere, without enough information to verify anything about it; the other is from a source that doesn't seem to pass WP:RS.) But reviewing the two that remain, both of them do indicate that there were allegations that Bush was involved ("First it was the Reagan administration. Then the Bush administration. And now we're into the Clinton administration.", "In nonpartisan style, the book contends President Bush was also deeply involved in the Arkansas program.") So I re-added that part for now. EDIT: But I also reworded the section to describe the allegations as 'conspiracy theories', since that's unequivocally the way the second source describes them throughout. --Aquillion (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Good calls on all points. I finally found a non-pay link to one of the articles and used that to fix the reference (I think one is enough). The tricky part of this page is that since it is about 'allegations', it necessarily includes conspiratorial hogwash. This article introduces a truly awful example (Terry Reed's book), but I think it is introduced appropriately, red warning flag lifted high. Rgr09 (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216015848/http://www.drugtext.org/Table/The-Politics-of-Heroin-in-Southeast-Asia/ to http://www.drugtext.org/Table/The-Politics-of-Heroin-in-Southeast-Asia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Official view ignored. Lies again

Kerry_Committee_report page and hundreds of sources state clearly that us government traficked illegally. As usual, all this is whipped out, forgotten, etc. I will try a rewriting.--81.37.41.177 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I liked the article stating that the CIA investigation found that the CIA was innocent. Geewillikers _ I have got some stuff I would like to investigate about myself - I bet I'm innocent. 2601:181:8301:4510:C9BE:25C2:CC22:73C0 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Iran-Contra section 2

This section's third paragraph originally had a paragraph claiming that the CIA used the Bank of Credit and Commerce International to "launder" the money it made from Contra drug sales. I haven't been able to find any sources for this, and deleted accordingly. Please don't reinstate unless you have a source for this specific claim. Rgr09 (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The insertion of that material was done here three years ago. Examination of the sources used in the material do not support the conclusion that the CIA was laundering money from drug sales. - Location (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would the government launder money. Just load it on a plane and hand deliver it - worked in Iraq. 2601:181:8301:4510:C9BE:25C2:CC22:73C0 (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Panama section

The Panama section had a lengthy paragraph on Manuel Noriega's incarceration and death after his conviction on drug-smuggling charges. This is irrelevant to the content of this article and I have deleted it. Rgr09 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael Ruppert in the lead

Michael Ruppert has been added into the article lead several times as one of the journalists making the claim that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. The reason these journalists are in the lead is that the article discusses their claims. Ruppert too should not be in the lead without some coverage of his claims. But Ruppert's claims of CIA involvement were previously removed from the article because they are not reliable and have not received significant coverage or discussion elsewhere, unlike the claims of writers such as Alfred McCoy or Peter Dale Scoott. Instead, Ruppert's claims were examined in the DOJ IG report on the Dark Alliance series, which found that "Based on our review, we believe that while Ruppert communicates his allegations fervently, they have no firm anchor in reality." This citation has already been given on the talk page. Please do not add Ruppert into the lead again without discussing these issues here. Rgr09 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed it again. Thanks for your contributions on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ruppert's work is extensively documented. He had first-hand knowledge of CIA drug trafficking as a Los Angeles narcotics detective. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You need to cite reliable sources that say this. The source I found, the DOJ investigation of the Dark Alliance claims, specifically deny that he had first-hand knowledge, or even second hand knowledge. Where is the documentation? Rgr09 (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by documentation. Ruppert was a career narcotics detective within the LAPD who received numerous commendations for the quality of his work. Unfortunately he discovered that at the highest levels LAPD were in cahoots with the CIA in bringing huge quantities of crack cocaine into south central Los Angeles, a story that was more fully expanded upon by Gary Webb in his San Jose Mercury series of articles. The principal source for Ruppert's work is contained within his From The Wilderness articles. Ruppert is a New York Times best-selling author. I think the onus is upon you to demonstrate Ruppert's lack of credibility. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever (beyond his own claims) that Ruppert uncovered any evidence of drug trafficking by the CIA or LAPD. Furthermore, he wasn't officially promoted to detective during his tenure with the LAPD.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@82.27.90.157:: Thank you for contributing to the talk page. Hopefully we can reach some consensus on Ruppert's claims here. Right now I still feel the main documentation on Ruppert's claims is very much against him. I put a link to one important document above, the DOJ OIG report discussing their interviews with Ruppert. I hope you had a chance to look at this. This is strong evidence that Ruppert is not credible, or even coherent, with respect to his claims on CIA drug smuggling.

Sources that can be cited (putting aside for the moment the standard of reliability) are essential for Wikipedia articles. I looked again at the Michael Ruppert page, and unfortunately I see almost none. The other people mentioned in the lead have all written books that deal at least in part with the claim that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. Ruppert wrote none as far as I know. Nor did he publish articles on the subject in any newspaper, magazine, or journal. You say that the principle source for Ruppert claims is in his From the Wilderness articles. From the Wilderness was Ruppert's blog. This is not a generally acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. I hope you could leave a note on why you think From the Wilderness is either not a blog or should be an exception to this Wikipedia practice of not using blogs to write articles. Even more important though, I hope you could provide links to the articles on From the Wilderness which deal with this subject. I have looked several times and have not found any. There is a link to one in the Michael Ruppert article, but it returns a 401 message: page not found.

That is the main reason why I have removed Ruppert's name from Allegations of CIA drug trafficking article more than once. I should say, though, that even if there are articles somewhere on From the Wilderness, and that somehow are an exception to the practice of avoiding the use of blogs, I might not agree that Ruppert belongs in Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. The article, as currently written, deals with book-length works by people like Webb, McCoy, Scott, and Cockburn. None of these writers discuss Ruppert's claims. Webb does not even mention his name. Rgr09 (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to look at book length studies I suggest you read Ruppert's Crossing The Rubicon in which an immense level of documentation is provided. Wikipedia is crawling with operatives from various intelligence agencies. The international narcotics trade has long been controlled by NATO member state intelligence agencies (both civilian and military) and there are many paid operatives whose role is to monitor wikipedia to prevent that truth from becoming apparent to the general public who would rightly be appalled if they knew how their tax dollars are being spent. As I say Ruppert is a New York Times best-selling author widely respected in many quarters. I can only assume that you are working for those people seeking to keep the truth from the general public. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not the right way to respond in a talk page discussion. Perhaps an rfc could help resolve the subject. I won't respond to you again, except at WP:DRN. Rgr09 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rgr09: It is clear from a basic search that there are pleny of RS to support this this IP address applies user's claims. First, likely WP:NOOB applies. Second, I found the following sources, some clear RS [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Why are you opposing his addtion of content (and then creating a half baked RfC with no real question) rather than just assisting the editor. Without question, the verge source is an RS. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

My first rfc was incorrectly formatted, my apologies for that. The new one was formatted correctly, thanks for your response below. As for assisting the editor, my reading of his statement "Wikipedia is crawling with operatives from various intelligence agencies...I can only assume that you are working for those people seeking to keep the truth from the general public." was that he was calling me an operative for an intelligence agency putting disinformation on wikipedia. Since I am not, I can't help but take exception. Do you really find this unexceptionable? Rgr09 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

He might not understand wikipedia. Lets WP:AGF in this case. What he/she needs help with is sources and understanding policy. I have provided a few RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Assume in good faith that he had some reason to believe I am 'working for those people seeking to keep the truth from the general public'? I don't understand. Why should I assume this is in good faith? Rgr09 (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we are a little off topic here, but I mean only that I am assuming as he/she doesn't have a registered account that he/she is a newbie. Thus he/she may not know the protocol of not attacking other editors, etc. It takes people a while to get the hang of Wikipedia and let's be welcoming to new editors. I have been called many names myself, and I am guessing it isn't the first time for yourself as well. I too have even maybe done some name calling myself. Thus all water under the bridge. Let's help the new editors and welcome them. Maybe in time they too will take an active role editing. We need more editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on works covered in the article

Should Michael Ruppert's claims be included in the article? Rgr09 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, include. RS: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• No.. Ruppert's claims are not RS. Nor have any of his advocates here cited any.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose (Summoned by bot): I am in agreement with the immediately previous !vote: I see no indication of a relevant WP:RS here which directly supports this statement, let alone the large number of high-quality, independent secondary sources that I would need to see in order to establish the WP:WEIGHT necessary to place his weight in this context. The Verge article is the only link presented so far that would perhaps qualify as an RS for at least some purposes, but it certainly does not do to justify the proposition that Ruppert was a major voice within maintstream respected authority on this topic--let alone the strong implication that we would be giving to anyone following that link that Ruppert's particular theories themselves are mainstream. Indeed, the Verge article, despite the outlet having a close relationship with the man, is pretty careful about not describing him as a journalist. No--this would be just all-around WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. Ruppert was a conspiracy theorist.[14] That his claims on the CIA get some coverage in the context of coverage of Ruppert himself does not mean we should promote them - this would be WP:PROFRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. Unlike McCoy, Scott, Webb, and Cockburn/St. Clair, Ruppert’s claims have not received significant coverage in reliable sources. -Location (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

@Rgr09: This RfC is poorly formed and should be pulled or restated in a clear way so that editors can vote. It appears this is a continuation of the above talk page section which I just reviewed, and it is clear that there are RS to support these claims [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The web sites you cite here are not RS. Ruppert's book is not RS. A book review repeating Ruppert's allegations is not RS. Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please hold off on edits to this part of the article while the rfc is underway.Rgr09 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Verge [20] is an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Except for the Verge, all of the links you provided were to Ruppert's 2004 book Crossing the Rubicon. As the review of the book you linked to shows, this book claims that 911 was a United States government conspiracy. This is not so. And Ruppert's drug stories are elaborately woven into this false framework; there is no way to distinguish between a reliable Ruppert and a non-reliable Ruppert in this book. It's unreliable, all the way down.

Returning to The Verge, the article linked to does not, so far as I can see, affirm that Ruppert was right about either 911 or the CIA-drug trafficking claims. Instead, it provides evidence suggesting that Ruppert was unreliable on the CIA-drug trafficking issue (and many other issues as well). Here is an quote:

[Jenna] Orkin [Ruppert's girlfriend] told me over the phone that Ruppert was adept at what she called "public relations" — bending stories to his interpretation of reality. Oftentimes, that interpretation didn’t conform with the real world.

Gary Webb — the journalist behind "Dark Alliance," the series that proved so pivotal in Ruppert’s evolution — said as much in an interview with the Boston Globe in 2003: "Mike is a real conundrum. I think he’s a sincere guy, concerned about the right things, and he was quite supportive of my efforts to expose the interplay between the CIA and drug traffickers. But he’s also written stories expounding a theory about the genesis of my Mercury News series that were, quite frankly, ridiculous."

The US Department of Justice had long ago come to a similar conclusion. After Ruppert’s public appearance at the town hall meeting with the director of the CIA, it sent investigators to meet with Ruppert and dig into his accusations about Teddy, the CIA, and the LAPD. The investigators concluded that "while Ruppert communicates his allegations fervently, they have no firm anchor in reality."

There are other, far sharper criticisms of Ruppert elsewhere, such as David Corn's 2002 article (Corn, David (May 30, 2002). "The September 11 X-Files". The Nation. Archived from the original on March 18, 2006. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)) which discusses both Ruppert's CIA-drug trafficking claims and 911 nonsense.

Ruppert's book is as non-RS as you can get, and should not appear in this article. His claims about his personal knowledge of CIA-drug trafficking are spurious, and have neither the minimal sourcing nor notoriety that marks the books which are discussed in the article. Rgr09 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Even some of the people sympathetic to these allegations had a hard time taking Ruppert seriously. The other day, I was re-reading the section of Nick Schou's book 'Kill The Messenger' (upon which the movie (by the same name) is based) that dealt with Ruppert. And the day Schou called Ruppert for a interview, lo and behold someone just happened to smash the computers in Ruppert's HQ (according to him). His suspects included everyone from the gov to a former employee (somehow tied to a local drug ring). Schou even notes something I didn't know: Ruppert was crass enough to bring copies of his book to Gary Webb's funeral. Unreal.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• The additional sources suggested in the section above by Jtbobwaysf do not serve. Those book reviews (and the Verge) only state that Rupert told "elaborate theories", and none of those sources substantiate or confirm Ruppert's claims. Reporting the theories by Ruppert is not the same as a RS that substantiates them. Having said that, I do not think than censoring his name and book are correct. A single mention of his claims are OK and enough. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the whole question here is: are Ruppert's statements even worth mentioning? He was pretty much at the level of Weekly World News. Somethings are beneath mentioning. Far more credible people (by a light year, and that is even considering how sloppy Cockburn has been at times on this issue) can be mentioned making these allegations.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way, but if we go by the title of this article (Allegations of CIA drug trafficking‎) then his book certainly qualifies. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is something that has come up in editing articles before and so the resolution here will be interesting. If allegations are all it takes.....what is the cutoff point to be notable? The line has proven to be hard to draw at times.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The very nature of this article is fringe, so are most of the "supporting" sources. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is fringe. Regardless the test would be notability, coverage in some major WP:IRS (aka Verge). Second, these fringe fork articles exist to provide WP:NPOV to wikipedia as a whole, as a pressure value for persistent WP:TE. In the case of this article the pro-CIA advocates would only want items proven in a court of law and reviewed by the Supreme Court. In the case of the conspiracy theorists they might want to cover everything under the sun. Thus at wikipedia we editors take a neutral position and look only at notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that the sources cannot establish notability of his book, and then his claims in the book establish his position? Indeed this article is fringe and I dont recall if I have ever edited the article, just noticed the dispute going on so I jumped in. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• The article should not just collect as many allegations as possible, or serve as a coatrack for conspiracy theories. I agree that sources in the article are fringe, or close to fringe, but these can still be whittled down at least to claims that were broadly discussed, (e.g. McCoy), or writing that provoked government investigations (McCoy and Webb). That is why I tried to focus the lead on better known and documented works on the subject, written by people like McCoy, Webb, Scott, Cockburn et al. In addition to those who provoked government investigations, like McCoy and Webb, their writing was featured or reviewed in major papers and/or journals, and involved interviewing significant figures, and tracking down documentation that was not generally available. Ruppert does not meet any of these criteria. Rgr09 (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

We dont have any special procedure for including content in this article do we (RfC, sanctions, etc)? If not, we just follow the sources. The lede should be a summary of the article and or could link to where the content is summarized on another article. That said, maybe Rupert's claims could be examined in the article mainspace. Was looking at Rupert's article, and the selfy looks pretty promotional. Maybe the lede is questionable in this case. But deleting it entirely is not suitable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Although there may be a few reliable sources discussing Ruppert, WP:WEIGHT really needs to be considered here. Even though Gary Webb’s series sparked large investigations by the USDOJ OIG[21] and the CIA OIG[22], their massive reports each only devoted a few paragraphs to Ruppert's made-up story. If it weren’t for all of the attention given to Webb, Ruppert never would have been at that town hall meeting and his crackpot claims likely would never had been made or officially addressed. -Location (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Larry Collins op-ed

A newspaper op-ed piece by writer Larry Collins is now cited in the first part of the article for various historical and factual claims. Wikipedia generally does not use op-ed pieces or editorials as factual sources. This is because editorials are not generally subject to the reporting or editing reviews and checking done for news articles, being primarily an expression of the writer's opinion. The author of this editorial is also not himself an expert on drug issues or the CIA; instead the editorial appeared at the time he had just finished a novel on the subject. I have marked one paragraph long section of Collins' piece as 'dubious.' If there are other sources for the same statements or claims, they should be substituted. Otherwise, I feel the Collins material should just be dropped. Rgr09 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I restored the NPOV tag because although the article is addressing specific claims by specific authors, it sometimes simply makes the claim rather than citing the claim. Several instances of this have been fixed over time, but it still occurs in e.g. the section on the golden triangle. Allegations about CIA drug smuggling in the Golden triangle are some of the oldest, going back to the 1960s (maybe); tracing the history of who said what when is a lot of work that I have been putting off. Rgr09 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please expand my edit. I only added a small amount of info.

I added some brief information from the New York Times article, "Anti-Drug Unit of C.I.A. Sent Ton of Cocaine to U.S. in 1990" mentioned above in the Necessary revisions section of this talk page to the United States section. This Times article was linked on this talk page in 2013. How is it that none of the information from the Times article was included in the WP article until I put it in, in 2021?! There is a ton of information in that Times article that needs to be included in the main article. I may put some more of the info from the Times article into the WP article in the future, but doing that kind of editing is not my forte. I'm sure that there are other instances of C.I.A. cocaine shipments into the U.S. from what Gary Webb has written about and maybe the book Freeway Rick Ross. Yet the only hard evidence I know about is this obscure New York Times article. -- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 09:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I expanded this to a degree. It appears to have been part of a effort to infiltrate & gather Intel on drug gangs. It's actually not that unusual for deep cover agents to witness merchandise getting moved but waiting to make their move.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The CIA, Contras, Gangs, and Crack

https://ips-dc.org/the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack/

(talk) 04:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Kill the Messenger (2014 film) scenes:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZbXA4lyCtqptOtzdt_Y8aA9DCN6QbGFu

Gary Webb

I added this:

In 1996 in the San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb authored the "Dark Alliance" series in which Webb stated that the CIA was responsible for the crack epidemic in the 1990s. Reporter Nick Schou wrote that "The CIA conducted an internal investigation that acknowledged in March 1998 that the agency had covered up Contra drug trafficking for more than a decade....[Webb was] vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report, which revealed that for more than a decade the agency had covered up a business relationship it had with Nicaraguan drug dealers like Blandón"

Bobthebuilder (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

To say Webb was vindicated is POV. And we already talk about his allegations in another section.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They quote Nick Schou a reporter, in the Los Angeles Times. 46.138.130.26 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, Webb's allegations are already in the article. (In another section.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Is it possible to determine CIA influences in the article?

Given the White House editing scandal, and how the US government will and has on what is probably thousands of occasions now used government officials to censor and alter several articles, is it possible to check to make sure the CIA isn't editing their own articles? I ask specifically because had this involved any other government agency from any other country, then Wikipedia's standards for what is regarded as credible evidence would've been considerably lowered. There is a frequent pro-US bias, and a very clear double standard when it comes to matters of US history. 91.116.33.211 (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

No way I am aware of. But wiki's standards of evidence are the same (regardless of the user). We try to work with the best RS to come up with the best article we can.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Poppy cultivation

Hello @Rja13ww33: This is not a quote and is not accurate. That text is editorialized. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A direct quote is always best. What you posted before does not reflect what the source says.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not correct. Direct quotes are rarely used because Wikipedia is written by its editors and because excessively quotation can cause COPVIO problems.

Additionally what you describe as a quote is not a quote. I can see that you do have access to the source because some of it is verbatim but some is not. You know that is not a direct quote. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Here it is (word for word from the source): As McCoy (2003, p. 18) summarizes, “To fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA, through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, backed Afghan warlords who used the Agency’s arms, logistics, and protection to become major drug lords.”

The "McCoy 2003" source is Alfred McCoy's 'The Politics of Heroin'. So what am I missing here? Is this quote attributable to someone else (in that book)? We can fix that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You have again editorialized the quote. That could not have been a copy paste error and requires you to edit the quote before posting it.

Additionally your version removes the specific commodity (opium), makes McCoy appear to enjoy no support from the source and generally makes these appear to be unsubstantiated allegations. They are statements of fact in the source. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't altered the quote one bit. The only other thing the article says (beyond what is quotes McCoy as saying) is: "Washington looked the other way" on Afghan drug production. Looking the other way is a whole different thing from what you added to the article: "During the 1980s the CIA worked through the Pakistan ISI to support Afghan cultivation of opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) and smuggling of the product."

Looking the other way and supporting the cultivation (and smuggling) of it are two different things. I provided a direct quote to be 100% clear.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Allegations of CIA drug trafficking because I don't think plain miscopying of text from a source can be resolved any other way. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully what Thebiguglyalien told you will sink in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at NPOVN indicates that the OP in this thread thinks that McCoy's views are unquestionably unchallenged. I added some material that disputes this. - Location (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You did not. You did correctly[23] edit a separate section because you understood that this does not pertain to the matter at hand – the Afghan poppy trade. Why pretend differently here? Invasive Spices (talk) 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The matter at hand is your argument that McCoy is an impeccable source of information and should be cited without attribution, so I provided information that shows he isn't. The allegations that McCoy made about the CIA in Vietnam in the 1972 edition of The Politics of Heroin are almost the same as those he made about the CIA in Afghanistan in the 2003 edition. It follows that if four governmental agencies found his earlier claims unsubstantiated, then his more recent claims should also be viewed through that lens. Hell, even Andreas provided attribution (not just a cite) for the information. Regardless, none of this changes the the fact that you said in wikivoice that the CIA was supporting drug smuggling through the Pakistan ISI, and - as has been pointed out multiple times - that is not supported by the source. - Location (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have replied to this Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. Duplication of this thread would be confusing. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 January 2023 (UTC)

References

United States removal

Hello @Location: Why have you removed[24] reliably cited information regarding the United States from the United States section? Invasive Spices (talk) 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably because it is already in the Venezuela section.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that in my edit summary, too. - Location (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the United States section? Invasive Spices (talk) 4 January 2023 (UTC)

In general, the sections are organized by geographical area where these incidents are said to have occurred.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And since this occurred in the United States it should not have been removed from that section. @Location: What makes you think this did not occur in the United States? You moved the sources which say it did therefore you are presumed to have read them. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We are talking the point of origin here. Obviously the destination for much of this is the United States....but that is how the article is organized. In the case we are talking about it says "The plan involved the unsupervised shipment of hundreds of pounds of cocaine from Venezuela". In other cases, locations/countries smugglers were based in. Soooo, anything else?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We are talking the point of origin here. That is obviously not true. Please read the article. It is organized by location as is every other Wikipedia article I have seen. No part of the article declares that it will ignore location of incidents and will instead talk only about location of origin of airplane flights. That would make a bizarre article. The source[25] recounts incidents in Venezuela and incidents in the United States and so should we. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether you want to call it location or point of origin....what is the difference? I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. The bottom line is (to go back to your original issue): we shouldn't be focusing on the same claims in two different sections.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

location or point of origin....what is the difference? Clearly you do have the English language WP:Competence to know the difference. Time wasting, nonsensical debate about the meaning of common English words does not belong on Talk:s. we shouldn't be focusing on the same claims in two different sections Entry and landing and unloading of cargo in the United States obviously by definition did not occur in Venezuela. Obviously by definition they are not the same. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be a expert on time wasting. But the point still stands that it doesn't make any sense to have the same claims in 2 different sections. The article was organized (in general) around geographic location (regardless of destination). I see no issue with that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue was a botched anti-drug trafficking effort... not a drug trafficking effort... so an argument could be made that it doesn't even belong in the article with this title. A better title for this article would be something like CIA ties to drug traffickers or CIA alliances with drug traffickers. That would address the early alliance between the CIA and the Corsican mafia, their connections with the Hmong, etc. during the Vietnam War, and the later support they gave to the Contras, Noriega, and anti-Taliban Afghanis. I would argue that the article should be structured around those connections, not necessarily the various locations. Even the Mena, Arkansas story is an offshoot of the CIA-Contra alliance. - Location (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue was a botched anti-drug trafficking effort... not a drug trafficking effort... You've made it as clear as mud because that also is obviously not true. U.S. Government Officials said in 1990 the Anti-Drug Unit of the C.I.A. "accidentally" shipped a ton of cocaine into the United States[26] is the text in question.

I would argue that the article should be structured around those connections I would support such additional sections with appropriate internal links without duplicating the material. Merely linking. That would aid in understanding. I would oppose obscuring the information in this not necessarily the various locations and this Even the Mena, Arkansas story is an offshoot of the CIA-Contra alliance. manner. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say....not your opinion. The RS (The New York Times) makes quite clear this was part of a anti-trafficking effort: "No criminal charges have been brought in the matter, which the officials said appeared to have been a serious accident rather than an intentional conspiracy......The mission was to infiltrate the Colombian gangs that ship cocaine to the United States. In December 1989, officials of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency said, Mr. McFarlin and the C.I.A. chief of station in Venezuela, Jim Campbell, met with the drug agency's attache in Venezuela, Annabelle Grimm, to discuss a proposal to allow hundreds of pounds of cocaine to be shipped to the United States through Venezuela in an operation intended to win the confidence of the Colombian traffickers. Unlike so-called "controlled shipments" that take place in criminal investigations, shipments that end with arrests and the confiscation of the drugs, these were to be "uncontrolled shipments," officials of the drug agency said. The cocaine would enter the United States without being seized, so as to allay all suspicion. The idea was to gather as much intelligence as possible on members of the drug gangs." Clear enough? Obviously they were not infiltrating these gangs for social contacts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That is far too many words to say An incident occurred in the US. You removed text about an incident in the US from the US section. That text is WP:RS cited. This is as simple as using {{slink}} in both sections to refer these two related incidents to each other. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well actually I didn't remove it....Location did. And I agree with him (for the reasons I stated). So since there is no consensus at all for what you want (either here or on the NPOV noticeboard)....I would find another way to spend your time.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The whole article is about the CIA (and thus the US). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(and thus the US) All incidents listed in this article occurred in the US? Invasive Spices (talk) 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The US section would contain actions the CIA did within the US geographic borders. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This is the edit[27] in question. The text did precisely that until it was removed. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 January 2023 (UTC)

it looks to me like it wasnt moved, it was just put under Venezuela. I think it would be due for inclusion if we could find more details about CIA actions inside the US and selling it in the US (did they sell to local drug dealers, were they transporting smaller quantities, etc). I support inclusion of the content, just noting it should be organized. — The previous unsigned comment was posted by 7 January 2023 Jtbobwaysf

This it looks to me like it wasnt moved, it was just put under Venezuela. is nonsense. It requires my time to respond to things like this. Please make sense or I'm afraid I can't reply further. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You complaining about someone not making sense? That's rich.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk: is not for spurious insults. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 January 2023 (UTC)

More irony.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This WP:BLUDGEON is starting to be in violation of WP:5P. Keep it WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Right back to the topic at hand. It's been 8 days since I created this section. @Jtbobwaysf: Can we agree that into the United States and on the streets in the United States[28] occurred within the United States? Invasive Spices (talk) 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, seems ok to me. @Location: whats the issue you have with it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Read through this section. Both Location and I have gone over why the move was made.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A profusion of distracting words all of which amount to WP:IDHT and WP:V doesn't matter and "in the United States" means it happened in Venezuela. The history[29] shows that R and L have edited the article solely to push one WP:POV for years. Unfortunately to resolve this endless distraction will require an RFC. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it's "endless" because you won't stop talking until you get your way. (Despite there being no consensus for what you want.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC on geography

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure)There is a reasonable consensus that the RFC question is not answerable as it does not pose a constructive question relating to a change to the article or a question of fact. The question is not neutral and leading per WP:RFCNEUTRAL since it jumps to a conclusion as to the implication of a truth value of a statement. Please discuss further and reopen a new RFC if one is still needed. Andre🚐 03:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

---

In this source do to the United States and in the United States mean that events occurred in the United States?

22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(RFC has been amended 15:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC) see note)

Comment: About one of the most malformed RFCs I've ever seen. (Why am I not surprised?) Doesn't even take on the question. No one is wondering if the NYTs is a RS. The issue is how the article is organized. Location removed something from the United States section because it was already in the Venezuela section. In general, the sections are organized by geographical area where these incidents are said to have occurred (or point of origin of the drugs....not the ultimate destination of the drugs)....this editor wants to change that. (See the above section. Linked here: [30])Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree it's malformed.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's malformed. We do not discuss if NYT is an RS here, we use WP:RSN, but frankly I dont think any question that NYT is an RS (for sure it is, see WP:RSP. Next, if you stop after the first question "In this source does to the United States mean that an event occurred in the United States?", I think it could be ok. Please try not to ask two questions in an RFC. Anyhow, please re-form the RFC asap. I think the core of the debate here is one editor wants it in the US section and another editor wants it in the Venez section. From my side, after the drugs touched US soil it is the US section. ThanksJtbobwaysf (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If that's true than just about everything belongs in the US section. The destination of just about all these drugs (mentioned in the article) is the US. The article was originally organized by geographic location along the drug trade route (i.e. point of alleged contact by the CIA (or it's assets) either at the source, or along the way). Granted there are a lot of different ways that it could be organized....but it's been this way for years, and I see no issue.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it means that this RFC is malformed and probably cannot continue as is. Be cooperative and listen to what other editors are saying, dont assume everyone is either for or against your position on some content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. To transform the discussion above into this RFC completely misrepresents the issue at hand.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and @Jtbobwaysf: Have I formatted the RFC correctly now? Invasive Spices (talk) 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment I have amended the RFC. I was unaware multiple questions are prohibited. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• The content on the "failed CIA anti-drug operation in Venezuela" clearly belongs in the Venezuela section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging Please see the RFC topic. I will repeat it here: In this source do to the United States and in the United States mean that events occurred in the United States? Invasive Spices (talk) 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• The content regarding "failed CIA anti-drug operation in Venezuela" belongs in CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities. - Location (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Location Please don't post comments that are not related to the RFC. Thank you. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Proposed alternative wording: In the collapsed section(s) below, I proposed a different wording to this RFC that I think captures the issues much better (and another editor agreed with me): "Does the incident described here [31] belong in the Venezuela section of this article or the United States part of the article? The discussion on this took place here [32]." I think that is much more to the point of the discussion than what is above.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I think participants are right to elude this RfC question as it's framed. If the purpose of the question is to determine where specific article content should be placed, let's ask that question. If the question is truly about the meaning of words in a source, and there is no intention to enact article changes based on the result of this RfC, then it's off-topic for this talk page and should be closed. I support the efforts below to adjust the opener—which I have uncollapsed—though I think we may be approaching the point at which the RfC would be better if closed and re-started. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Per Firefangledfeathers, I support closing this RfC and re-starting a new one. If multiple questions are permitted in a single RfC, I propose having an uninvolved editor/admin draw up something like the following:

Question 1: Does the incident described here belong in Allegations of CIA drug trafficking, in CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities, or in both?

Question 2: If you think discussion of that incident belongs in Allegations of CIA drug trafficking, should it be discussed in the Venezuela section of the article or the United States section of the article?

Q1 is necessary because sources indicate the incident was about a botched anti-drug trafficking effort... not a drug trafficking effort... which means the material may not even belong in this article. Q2 is essentially the same as what Rja13ww33 has noted above. - Location (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Please read WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Introducing a new word elude for the same thing doesn't change anything. Per WP:RFC an RFC section is for discussion of the RFC. Do you have a response that is pertinent to the RFC? Invasive Spices (talk) 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Location: Please read WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Per WP:RFC an RFC section is for discussion of the RFC. Do you have a response that is pertinent to the RFC? Invasive Spices (talk) 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Invasive Spices, you mentioned elsewhere that you think I need to explain further why I think this RfC is problematic. I'd like to reiterate that the question as framed is not at all focused on changes to the article. I do not think it's useful to run an RfC here whose result won't have any effect on article content. I think it would be best to close this RfC and start a new one using the opener language proposed by Location just above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• I also agree that this RfC is malformed and should be closed without action. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: In what way is the RFC malformed? Invasive Spices (talk)

This has been explained to you numerous times, both above and on FFF's talk page. It is your responsibility to WP:LISTEN. Generalrelative (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Meta-discussion on the RfC

RFC text was *In [https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/20/world/anti-drug-unit-of-cia-sent-ton-of-cocaine-to-us-in-1990.html this source] does <code>to the United States</code> mean that an event occurred in the United States? *In the same source does <code>in the United States</code> mean that an event occurred in the United States? *Is the New York Times a reliable source for this subject? 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC) until 15:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC) when edited by Invasive Spices)

Again misrepresenting the issue discussed in the section above. No one (for example) is questioning if the NYTs is RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You are making a large number of repetitious, off topic comments which obscure topical discussion. You are either doing this intentionally or unintentionally. Examination of your history on this article and the NPOV discussion makes it clear which it is. In either case please stop. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 January 2023 (UTC)

How exactly are my comments off-topic when they go to the heart of the issue with the RFC? Face it: you don't know what you are doing here. You got shot down over on the NPOV noticeboard [33] on another topic on this page, and now you put up a malformed RFC. My suggestion to you is to learn some of the rules here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't the New York Times be a reliable source for this subject? The New York Times is a reliable source. And it seems that yes, if it says in the United States it means "in the United States." It is the same if it says an event occurred in Venezuela. That would mean "in Venezuela." Also, can you please fix the opening question by simply typing it without the code tags.---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is a malformed RFC. This is actually a talk page discussion point and not an RFC. It is really not clear what the purpose of this RFC is. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: The problem is that this is not the RFC. You've replied to something below the RFC. I'm going to take your reply And it seems that yes to be agreement with the RFC above. If you reiterated that opinion in the section above that would make it even clearer.

The purpose of the RFC is that two users (L and R) are spamming the Talk: to make discussion hard to understand. They are contesting this very simple question. I agree this RFC should not be necessary. Unfortunately this has been the state of this article for several years. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No one is spamming here. You are misrepresenting the issues raised above into this (malformed) RFC that will not resolve these issues.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me help you out here. Here is what the RFC should say: "Does the incident described here [34] belong in the Venezuela section of this article or the United States part of the article? The discussion on this took place here [35]." That's much more to the point of the discussion than what is above.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Just to be clear you agree that the RFC is still malformed? Please specify. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have explained as best I could. What is the RfC question you are referring to now?--Jack Upland (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Jack Upland you think Agree it's malformed.[36] and I agree.[37] are explanations?

The RFC question in the RFC section. Which is not this section. I {{ping}}ed[38] you in the correct section so that you would see it. How did you come to this section? ~~

Seems to me like he is saying (and tell me if I'm wrong jack) he agrees with my statement on what this RFC should say (i.e. @17:53 1/16).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I posted a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests, specifically on the question of whether this RfC should be procedurally closed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bogus closure

This is a facially incorrect closure and should be discussed Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking#RFC_on_geography here. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:AN is thataaway, which is where RFC closures are reviewed after discussing with the closer. See WP:CHALLENGECLOSE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the closure I will state it was pretty much universal that the RFC was ill formed. Might be good to run the RFC again in some time (maybe a month or two) and be very very simple in your language. Something like 'should x [diff] content be in the US or Venezuela sections?' I was in favor of putting part of it in the US section, it just seemed the RFC never really got off the ground due to the formatting issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Noriega

Hello @Prinsgezinde: I think you forgot Special:Diff/1152921398. — Invasive Spices (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't forget, I reverted Marek's deletion of the "Mexico" section because it cites El País, a well-known Spanish newspaper of record and reliable source. The material itself also properly attributes the claims and makes it clear that they are are allegations. I wasn't so sure about the Panama section at the time because it cites two lesser-known books (though looking at it now the writers do appear to all be reliable figures). Since I currently don't have the time to get into a discussion on the topic I'm not keen on reverting anything else (plus it's been a month), but if you want to challenge it yourself feel free to do so. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Me personally, I never had much objection to it being there....but the section always bothered me from several standpoints (which is why I didn't argue with it being deleted):

1. 1: The entire section is sourced almost entirely to Cockburn & Clair's 'Whiteout...'. Whatever anyone thinks of them, the publisher (Verso) is a fairly left-wing publisher that is not on our RS list and when it has come up one the RS notice board, it hasn't always been endorsed as impartial. [39] [40] I would think (if kept) it would need proper attribution.
2. 2: The only other source cited in that section Kevin Buckley's 'Panama: The Whole Story'. The passage partially sourced to him was: General Manuel Noriega, head of Panama's government, had been giving military assistance to Contra groups in Nicaragua at the request of the U.S.—which, in exchange, allowed him to continue his drug-trafficking activities—which they had known about since the 1960s. That makes it sound like some sort of agreement had been made with Noriega that he could send as much drugs into the USA as it he wanted as long as he supported the Contras. There is no page number given for this in Buckley's book....and I don't see any such claim made. Buckley's book does make it clear that the American government had been aware for quite sometime of Noriega's involvement in the drug trade.....and they looked the other way because of international politics. But nothing like the passage I quoted.
3. 3: It leaves out contrary POVs. In Buckley's 'Panama...', he also notes the fact that Noriega "...had received a steady stream of grateful letters from Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officials for his help in busting drug traffickers. Panama City was one of the most successful of all DEA offices." (p.19). Granted Noriega liked to play both sides of the fence....but this should be noted. The way the section read before, you'd think the guy was just dealing and the American government was just winking and nodding....it is more complicated than that.

So these are the sort of things that need to be fixed (if the section is to be restored).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the section is definitely POV and sources are WP:FRINGE at best. Buckley book is probably closer to RS but it’s also written “like a spy thriller”. I.e. early 90s version of click bait. Volunteer Marek 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see what you are saying: The more I read about some of the claims made in 'Whiteout...' on this subject, the more I wonder how accurate they are. A good example is another claim in the (former) Noriega section that was sourced to 'Whiteout': "When the DEA tried to indict Noriega in 1971, the CIA prevented them from doing so." Just looking around I found sources that said otherwise. In, for example, a October 11, 1988 article that appeared in The Village Voice (not exactly a right-wing rag) entitled 'Bush and the Secret Noriega Report', it says this: "There was so much evidence in fact, that in the early '70's DEA officials made their first attempt to indict Noriega on drug charges. But the indictment was never brought because the assistant U.S. attorney in Miami believed Noriega would never be extradited from Panama, according to the former DEA official." So I think there is more to some of this than 'Whiteout' is saying. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)