Talk:CIA drug trafficking allegations

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

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

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[1] 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[2] 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[3] 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[4] 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[5] 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[6] 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[7] 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

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: [8])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 [9] belong in the Venezuela section of this article or the United States part of the article? The discussion on this took place here [10]." 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)

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 [11] 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 [12] belong in the Venezuela section of this article or the United States part of the article? The discussion on this took place here [13]." 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.[14] and I agree.[15] are explanations?

The RFC question in the RFC section. Which is not this section. I {{ping}}ed[16] 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)