Talk:CIA drug trafficking allegations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noriega[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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. [1] [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move 8 November 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to CIA drug trafficking allegations. There is no consensus to remove the word 'allegations' from the title. However, a slight modification to the title was proposed and has some consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of CIA drug trafficking → CIA drug trafficking – From the numerous articles and FBI documents that have been released it's quite clear CIA agents working on behalf of the CIA trafficked drugs. Because of this, there is no reason for the article to have "Allegations" in the title. Xephael (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Remsense has edited capitalisation of proposed target from CIA Drug Trafficking to CIA drug trafficking per the discussion below. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The word "allegations" was chosen in past discussions because so much of the article is unproven allegations. So it seemed appropriate. I think it ought to stay as is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rja13ww33. Also the (unmentioned) changes from lowercase to uppercase are not appropriate per WP:LOWERCASE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support wholeheartedly. These are true facts. Not allegations. Holidayruin (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Far better to keep it as is (and, of course, lowercased). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. A lot of the article consists of allegations at various levels of plausibility, but it's not the subject of the article, the subject is the alleged trafficking, not the phenomenon of allegation. I don't support it over the original (sentence-cased) suggestion, but Alleged CIA drug trafficking is a much more correct title. Remsense聊 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion on the move itself, but if this article is to be moved, it should be to CIA drug trafficking (lowercase) instead of CIA Drug Trafficking (title case), as it is not a proper noun. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The original suggestion was formatted in title case, I have edited it to the uncontroversial normative form in order to focus discussion on the main purpose of the proposed move. Remsense聊 21:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose / alternative On review of the article, some but not all of the allegations are substantiated. I would propose an alternative of CIA drug trafficking allegations. This places the key term CIA drug trafficking at the head of the title string. As such, it is more conducive to searches. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support this alternative over the present title. Remsense聊 01:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternative proposed by Cinderella157 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per reasons given by Xephael.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to muddy the waters, but what about CIA drug trafficking and allegations? Too clunky? Primergrey (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking the same concept, how to word the title so that it is clear it has occurred and there are also more allegations. It is a bit more clunk, but not bad. I think I still prefer "CIA drug trafficking allegations" Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

TL;DR[edit]

In the recent RM, some people seemed to allege that it is a proven fact that the CIA has conducted drug trafficking. If that's true, the lead section should say it, but it doesn't, and I haven't found any proven instances of such activity described in the article body. Is there some part of the article that confirms this, or are the proven elements just a matter of "turning a blind eye" to what others were doing, sometimes supporting other people or organizations that were trafficking drugs (along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", or the idea of "complicity" versus "culpability" as described in a quote in the article), or the actions of individual agents who "went rogue"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's more allegations or turning a blind eye than anything else. (ergo the title) Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be much more solid to say that the CIA intentionally sought to create conditions of increased drug trafficking. If that can be attested, then I start to wonder why it matters quite as much (for the purposes of most people who are interested in the subject) if it were agents, assets, or otherwise people unaffiliated with the CIA who were literally moving product. Remsense留 04:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, I want to make clear that I have not adequately attested or proven the above—and I would not be comfortable with stating it in an article without multiple clear citations. Remsense留 20:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nugan Hand Bank[edit]

Is there any reason why the Nugan Hand Bank isn't included in the body of the text but is relegated to the See Also section? Jack Upland (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has been sitting in the See Also section since 2012. Burrobert (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some editor, who I can't recall, was working with me about Nugan Hand, and I was under the impression the Nugan Hand saga was going to be incorporated into this article. It really should be because the scandal was big in Australia in the early 80s and there were swirling rumours of CIA and drug trafficking allegations - though these were doubted by the Royal Commission.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A huge story at the time. And if you tell that to the young people today, they won't believe you. The relevant content from [3] could be copied across or a fresh approach taken. Burrobert (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nugan Hand Bank should be the main article but there should be a short section here about the bank and the hair-raising allegations about the bank here. Even if the allegations were untrue. But this article is about allegations, so even allegations from Australia are relevant. Relegating the bank to a "See Also" is invalid.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CIA_drug_trafficking_allegations&oldid=1206694408"