Talk:Barry Seal

Too many problems to count

There are too many problems with the article to mention, so I will hit on the main points. Firstly, larger portions of the article are cut and paste from the High Times article, and as such a violation of copyright. Secondly, High Times does not conform to WP:V or WP:CITE guidelines, so an article comprised almost entirely of information from it does not conform to these guidelines either. Next we have the issue with the picture. Not sure where it comes from, the pictures file states that it was donated by Seal's wife, but once again there is no verification of this. As such, I am reverting the article back to the state I had left it in. Discuss changes here and add material slowly so it can be properly vetted. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There was never any copying of any information from an article written in High Times. This is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.122.24 (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

TDC: Please do not revert or this will quickly go to Admin

(Copied from discussion comments at Felix Rodriguez for ease of future revisions: TDC: welcome to the scholarly study of US relations with Latin America. Your Wikipedia web-page clearly states your political biases: you are a self-proclaimed "defender of capitalism against the 'Neo-Coms' ('neo-Communists')." "William Blum, Howard Zinn, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, and [Noam] Chomsky sound exactly like Osama bin Laden." "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." Your first words on your page are: "Wise words to bear in mind before picking a fight with The TDC'ster." You are welcome to these opinions. Wikipedia articles, however, require a NPOV. You are welcome to offer countervailing facts and sources to those on an existing page. You are are not welcome, however, to randomly delete well-documented and highly relevant material that happens to run against your views. You have done this repeatedly, and a complain will soon be lodged against you. I suggest you work with Wikipedia guidelines, which will help create more informative and balanced web pages. Your contributions are welcome! But please do not delete the hard work of others just because you disagree with them politically. Stick to adding factual material and sources.) (1) You write: "larger portions of the article are cut and paste from the High Times article, and as such a violation of copyright." Nonsense. Please do not use specious arguments to support your political biases. Stick to historical facts. Nothing in this article comes remotely close to copyright violation. The HT article is clearly referenced and cited, and there are many other sources. (If you see a section that is "cut and pasted" then put it in quotes and cite the HT article. Do not simply delete whole sections of the article that challenge your political views. If there are particular facts you dispute, then flag those and raise them in discussion, and we can go over them. A blanket revert does no-one any good. (2) There is considerable discussion within Wikipedia as to what constitutes a reliable source WP:RS. Agreed, High Times is not the first choice of scholarly sources; although it does have verifiable evidence. This article, however, clearly contains "multiple independent sources," including many original archival documents (which you have deleted, for no reason). (3) The picture: "there is no verification of this" -- really, TDC, this is being excessively contentious, and it seems likely you are using this to further your political agenda and not to seek a NPOV historical truth. As such, your broad deletions constitute Vandalism (Blanking); it goes way beyond bold edits. 208.59.121.177 00:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So is it this anonymous TDC that keeps destroying hours of work. After completing tons of research I decided to give the public an overiew of this man's biography. Then all the work is erased and disappears? Who are you to condem my work? You are not God, nor are you the chief of police or attorney general of this site. Please stop using "Ice" and concentrate on your own work and contributions. Strange that there was a claim that information was derived from a High Times article. This was never referrenced and is laughable and ridiculous. Thank you.

Research needed

• While in Vietnam did Seal with work with Ted Shackley or Richard Secord?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.121.177 (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also, did he work with Felix Rodriguez (CIA) then?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.13.23 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes he worked with Felix Rodriguez, and William Robert Plumlee. The others are not clearly linked.

Adding this comment for those who might be confused by all this. Seal was never in Vietnam. The references to Seal working with Shackley, Secord, Rodriguez, Plumlee, etc. are all taken from Daniel Hopsicker's unreliable self-published work. Rgr09 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

please see Talk on TDC, and please engage in Discussion

Agreed this should NOT have a {category} of Kennedy Assassination -- didn't see that before, thanks for removing it. (Conspiracy buffs: take any unsubstantiated theories elsewhere.) And agreed it is vital to stick to the facts and NPOV. Article reverted, per ongoing conflict and attempts at discussion with TDC. MONGO, you understand your responsibilities as an Admin and you understand that Blanking Vandalism is not constructive. You also understand that not every single sentence or fact in an encyclopedia must be sourced, and that a pattern of mis-using Wiki guidelines (including NPOV, V, CITE, etc.) as a veiled attempt at partisanship or ideology is itself unacceptable behavior. Please identify which facts, if any, you believe need citations with the {{Fact}} template. Please also identify any particular examples of alleged "POV" and they will be fixed. The vast majority if not all of what you removed is sourced and NPOV. Your blind support for TDC (three times now) calls into question your neutrality as an Admin. Reference for other Admins: for background, please see User talk:TDC, and discussion above and on Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency). Please note that this week TDC has already violated the terms of his parole for similar behavior. Please also note that twice before TDC has turned to Admin MONGO after engaging in revert wars and other unWikipedian behavior (on "Depleted uranium" and "What's the matter"/"Protect"), and (as far as I can tell) both times MONGO has been overruled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.121.177 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Hopsicker is a crackpot tinfoil type, the inclusion of his material does not conform to WP:RS. The picture has absolutely zero verification.

Relevand portions od WP:RS are as follows:

Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. This page is an attempt to provide guidance about how to identify these. The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I will not tell you this again, and stop leaving messages on my talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

TDC: Thank you for beginning to engage in discussion (your imperative tense notwithstanding). As a collaborative effort, Wikipedia is an ongoing conversation. As the Barry Seal article states, not everything Hopsicker writes is credible, notably his Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theories (which are shunned here -- we could add a sentence to this effect, but even that would seem to give it more attention than it deserves), although not everyone shares your POV that he "is a crackpot tinfoil type." Hence this article draws on many sources. However, the photograph in question (Mexico 1963), is beyond dispute: it was personally provided by Barry Seal's widow, with the date and location on the back. Not only Hopsicker, but also (independently) John Caylor confirm this. The photo is an important historical document and deserves to be featured here. Besides being published in Hopsicker's book (on the front cover, no less), the photo and IDs in it are also featured on other encyclopedias, e.g. the UK's Spartacus Educational. The rest of the Barry Seal article draws on a wide variety of reliable published sources. Some of these are cited, some are listed in the References section, others can be added if there are particular facts you feel need a citation. Again, thank you for starting to engage in discussion. Responding to the particular passages you cite from WP:RS:

• The events of 45 years ago in Cuba are hardly "recent events," and the wide availability of scholarship and archival documents published on this period make these events unsurprising to anyone who has studied it. E.g., see the excellent GSU National Security Archives and the Watson Institute 40th anniversary conference on the Bay of Pigs, for that period.
• Some of these facts are not "widely known" to the non-specialist, precisely because they were classified for many years. However, most academic scholars and journalists of Latin America (and US-Latin relations) agree on the facts, whether or not they agree on the interpretation of them.
• The same is true of the Iran-Contra scandal (and Felix Rodriguez (CIA)) -- it took some time for the truth to emerge about these events, including via investigative journalism and the Walsh Report investigation, and many non-specialist Americans (and others) are still surprised by the facts of that event. You may be discomfitted by those facts, but this does not change their reality. Unglesby and Dalton, attorneys on opposing sides in the trial of Seal's assassins, agreed on the facts reported here. Additional citations can be provided here, if needed. (E.g., from the Walsh Report.)
• The events of Barry Seal's life as described are not "out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended." We might agree it is tragic that such a brilliant pilot ended up with several convictions for drug smuggling, and met an untimely end. His criminal activities are a matter of public record, as documented in many court transcripts. Although Seal "previously defended" various account of his life, his own words are at times subject to doubt, as revealed in court transcripts.
• It is not clear just which facts or aspects of the article you are objecting to, other than the photograph of Seal in 1963. If your focus is on the photograph, then discussion of it should go to the photo's Discussion page, to help users who draw on that photo for other pages.
• In a good-faith effort to help resolve this conflict, the Iran-Contra/Bush section (which drew on a 1997 article by Hopsicker) was cut, and brief mention from it (Dalton/Unglesby) made in the "Informant, Nicaragua" section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.121.177 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Picture

One at a time then, The picture; where is the verification that this photo is what it claims to be. John Caylor is self published with no credentials outside of his website, where he has made the claim, amongst others that a CIA hit team is out to get Wayne Madsen. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot use sources from non news or non academic websites. So no Geocities and the like. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating the reliability of a source depends in part on the nature of the claims they are making. Factual claims ("I met with Debbie Seal") are more likely to be reliable than conjectures ("The CIA is after Wayne Madssen"), in part because they can be easily confirmed/disconfirmed (by reasonable standards -- e.g., by asking Debbie Seal: "Did John Caylor meet with you?"). Even if Caylor wrote that he believes in four-headed Martians, it would not cast doubt on his meeting Debbie Seal.

According to the former producer for the TV show Wall Street Week for PBS, who was also an executive producer of the NBC show Global Business, and an investigative reporter for NBC News, this photo is of Barry Seal, and was identified as such (and shown to him) by Barry Seal's widow. The photo is on the cover of a book by Daniel Hopsicker, published in September 2001, Barry and the Boy, and the way he obtained it is described in the book and on his website. (Note that the book cover could also be used instead, as it is also in the public domain as promotional material. However, given that it includes the very same photograph, simply smaller hence less visible, this would be a disservice to Wikipedians.) Let's see if we disagree on any of this, and move forward. I think any reasonable observer will agree up to at least point 14 in the following list, and probably point 15 as well. I have emailed Hopsicker at his website to get his input; I do not know him and have no idea if he will respond here. Let me know if you think any of the following needs a citation, and if so at what point:

1. There is a person named Daniel Hopsicker. 2. He was a producer for the TV show Wall Street Week for PBS, he was the former executive producer of the NBC show Global Business, he was an investigative reporter for NBC News, and he is the author of book: Barry and the Boys. 3. There is a person named Deborah ('Debbie') Seal. 4. Debbie Seal is the widow of Barry Seal, and the mother of his children. 5. Hopsicker writes that he met with this Debbie Seal. 6. It is reasonable to conclude that Hopsicker did meet with this Debbie Seal. 7. Hopsicker writes that Debbie showed him a photograph. 8. It is reasonable to conclude that Debbie did show him a photograph. 9. The photograph she showed him is the one in question, as Hopsicker writes in his book and on his website. 10. Hopsicker reports that the photograph is marked with the name of a nightclub (La Reforma) in Mexico City, and stamped with a date, January 22, 1963. 11. It is reasonable to conclude that the photograph is marked with the name and date, as Hopsicker reports. And that the name and date refer to this photograph. 12. Hopsicker reports that Debbie told him this photograph depicts Barry Seal, among others. 13. It is reasonable to conclude that Debbie did tell Hopsicker that this photograph depicts Barry Seal, among others. 14. Debbie believes this herself, with good reasons, and in good faith. (E.g., she likely recognizes her husband, he told her it was him, etc.) 15. As stated by Barry Seal’s wife (and mother of his children), the photograph does depict Barry Seal, among others.

There are other sources for this photo, but this is a start. I look forward to working with you in improving the Barry Seal page. Thank you for your participation in the Discussion. 208.59.121.177 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: Does the picture in the article actually add anything to the article, or does it only sensationalize the death of Barry Seal? Should other photos of deaths be used in other articles? Unless a strong argument is given that the article, in fact, suffers without a crime scene photo of Barry Seal's dead body, it should be removed from the page.

Thraxamer (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Thraxamer.....75.52.122.24 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Brief history of dispute on this page

For future ease of reference by Arb Cttee.

5 December 2005: First mention of Dalton and Unglesby, by user Nfgii. Also mentions connection to Bush Sr. Also notes that Seal's plane later was used by Bush Jr. These points seem largely accepted by users IP 83.76.85.156, Bluemoose, Cmdrjameson, 69.150.58.188, CmdrObot, Gamaliel, LoganCale, and JoeBot. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Seal&oldid=30210677

10 May 2006: By user IP 141.161.48.111. Section headings added. Photo of Barry Seal (and others) from 1963 added. Users Gamaliel, SamanthaForrester, IP 208.59.121.177, and Nloth, continue to contribute to article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Seal&oldid=52545902

15 May 2006: Major blanking by TDC, who alleges "most of this is ridiculous rumor mongering", without engaging in discussion. (Note that this wipes out much of five months of unchallenged work.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Seal&oldid=53375520

17 May 2006: Re-revert by SammanthaForrester. Continued improvements by 208.59.121.177. Revert war with TDC escalates, initially with no discussion by TDC, until { test } template is employed on his Talk page. TDC violates conditions of his parole (as noted in User talk: TDC).

19 May 2006: TDC turns to Admin MONGO, who (as noted in User talk: TDC) twice before has unsuccessfully tried to defend TDCs behavior amid widespread complaints, and does so again here. This calls into question MONGO's neutrality (a defining responsibility of Administrators). MONGO reverts to TDC's version with no discussion, evidently based on TDC's word, leaving only the Edit Summary: "lots of mostly unsourced POV removed...kennedy assassination? surely." IP-208.59.121.177 posts on Talk, requests discussion, agrees that JFK category should not be there, removes it, reverts to version accepted by users Gamaliel, SamanthaForrester, Nloth, and 208.59.121.177 (including earlier work by IP 83.76.85.156, Bluemoose, Cmdrjameson, 69.150.58.188, CmdrObot, Gamaliel, LoganCale, and JoeBot). At 7:49pm, TDC helpfully replies on the Discussion page, showing signs that he is willing to negotiate and improve the article jointly. He adds to this at 8:01pm. This could lead to productive dialogue. At 8:13pm, TDC inserts a {TotallyDisputed} template (which is fine). Six minutes later, at 8:19pm, without giving any time for response, "Admin" MONGO once again reverts to TDC's much earlier version, which ignores virtually all prior work, again with no discussion or negotiation, and only the Edit Summary: "I have a tendency to revert anonymous IP accounts when they do major overhauls to articles such as this." (Note to MONGO: "IP addresses: Visitors who haven't 'signed in' can still do most things, including the most important: editing articles".)

Given that TDC initiated the dispute, and given his indication to work on improving the page ("One at a time then"), the page is being reverted to TDC's last edit, undoing MONGO's revert. Responses to TDC on "The Picture" will be made above, in due course. Others are inivited to chime in. 208.59.121.177 02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You need a lesson in civility which is policy here. Argue about the message, not the messenger. I have done nothing wrong as I demand proper, unbiased references if you are going to add potentially libelous content...it is as simple as that. Honestly, if you want your edits to be taken seriously when working on articles such as this and adding or reverting items as you have, you will be viewed with less suspicion if you create and use only one username.--MONGO 03:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"You need a lesson...", "I demand...", "if you want your edits to be taken seriously...", "you will be viewed with less [sic] suspicion..." Hrm. Yup, WP:CIVIL is a useful page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.13.23 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No Mention of Mena?

Hi. I'm new to writing wikis and not sure where on "discussion" to discuss, but this article on Barry Seal seems to be a ludicrous whitewash of the man's life. The evidence of Barry Seal's life as presented by Daniel Hopsicker in "Barry and the Boys" is corroborated by Terry Reed's "Compromised: Bush, Clinton and the CIA."

Barry Seal was said to have single handedly smuggled $5 billion worth of cocaine into the United States. According to Reed, who said that Seal was among his "handlers" in the training base at Mena, Akransas, where he alleged to have met Seal, this cocaine came back into the United States in the same wooden crates that had been used by the United States government to ship arms to Nicaragua. Reed claimed that his supervisors in this operation included Felix Rodriguez, and that he was recruited for the operation by Ollie North.

I don't understand why all of this information about the actual life of Barry Seal has been dismissed as rumor-mongering. Much of it has been corroborated by individuals who worked alongside Seal in these operations.

The Mexico City photograph shows early involvement with individuals who would later be connected to multiple Washington scandals, including Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy Assassination, the Watergate break-in, the Iran-contra scandal, and the questions around Mena that frequently haunted the Clinton era "Whitewater scandal." (I put the last in quotes because Whitewater was the non-scandal that was used to divert attention from the actual bi-partisan covert operation at Mena.)

I'm not trying to engage in tin-foil wearing and innuendo and have stuck with data where I can verify my sources. If anyone wishes to communicate with me, my email is merlinswheel(at)hotmail.com. Merlinswheel 11:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As to why Mena, Arkansas, has not been mentioned in this article, I would go so far as to speculate that mentioning this aspect of Barry Seal's life would offend the political posturing of many left-winger Wikipedians, ones who are also arguably quite loyal to Bill Clinton, so therefore, they choose to omit, ignore, suppress, or disparage any such discussion of this matter.

Bill Clinton was the Arkansas governor during the time of Barry Seal's operations at Mena, but yet somehow, he never exerted any initiative toward using the power of his office to put a stop to them. After being questioned about Mena during his service as governor at a 1994 press conference, Bill Clinton claimed that the issue was entirely a federal matter and out of his jurisdiction as a way to explain his inaction. Yet, as the chief executive of the federal branch, Bill Clinton apparently did nothing about Mena then, either. This seems outwardly suspicious if nothing else. Kepiblanc 05:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason why Mena is not mentioned is because some "Hyper sensitive maniac," keeps reverting the information that I provided on the site regarding Barry Seal's work as a drug smuggler. I have numerous books and information verifying this. But some maniac keeps reverting the work.

Crazy and pointless. Who are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.122.24 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

It would be more helpful to use section templates and line templates (rather than article templates). There are discussed here and here E.g., {Sectfact}, {POV-section}, {TotallyDisputed-section}, {Not verified}, {fact}, etc. This would productively help move revisions forward. 68.50.13.23 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a good idea to wait for expert opinion. Reverted to Mongo's previous edit, with the edition of [de:] per YurikBot. As stated, section and line templates are preferred to an entire article template. 68.34.61.218 21:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the above issues have ben dealt with, namely the use of poor sources. I have laid out in detail why sources like personal webpages and www.whatreallyhappened.com do not conform to WP:V. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey TDC, you have no proof that information on this page was taken from any personal webpages. Trutv is owned an operated by Turner Television a division of Time Warner. If you have problems with what was written there. I suggest you try and take issue with Time Warner Corporation directly. Plus there are many other sources, book, and articles....on the subject of the 35 year drug war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.122.24 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Sam wants me?

I thought the movie was great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.57.60.161 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Name

The Social Security death records show that the name associated with the SSAN #436-56-3533 is BERRY Seal, born 7/16/39 and died Feb 1986. If his middle name was Berriman it would seem likely that he would spell it Berry rather than Barry, but most articles use Barry. Should we put up a redirect for Berry or correct this to Berry and redirect Barry? BuffaloBob 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence fragment

Just an anon passerby. This sentence from the Undercover Informant section:

In an attempt his 1984 arrest in Florida, Seal agreed to cooperate with the DEA, and testify against his former colleagues.

makes no sense in the In an attempt his 1984 arrest in Florida part. What exactly is this referring to? Thanks all for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.242.153 (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Major unsourced claim re: Dianne Feinstein

Hi. Total newcomer here. Question about something that seems to need fixing. From the article:

" A story appeared in the Washington Times in 1984 describing the infiltration of the Medellín cartel's operations in Panama and Nicaragua.[11] The story was based on a leak from a congresswoman(Diane Feinstein), whom in turn had been briefed by Oliver North, who in turn claims he had been ordered to do so by a higher authority. The alleged purpose was to prove the Nicaraguan Sandinistas' involvement in the drug trade and to build support for the Contra war effort. This leak and subsequent controversy eventually led to the Iran Contra Affair which unraveled a year later.[12]

The Wall Street Journal also printed the story. The media coverage indirectly exposed Seal's involvement in the operation. "

This passage has a number of problems. First, no evidence is given for the somewhat extraordinary claim that the leak "led to the Iran-Contra Affair." Indeed, wiki's own Iran-Contra article suggests (in agreement with Bob Woodward's book 'Veil') that the public phase of the scandal began with a leak to a Lebanese magazine by an Iranian (Mehdi Hashemi) furiously opposed to the arms dealing with the United States and Israel. Also, Seal had been dead for months by the time the Lebanese article was published; it seems to me the claim that Seal's murder, in and of itself, led to exposure of the Iran/Contra scheme is overstated at best and certainly ignores major facts. (Hashemi also organized a noisy protest in downtown Tehran in opposition to the 'secret' visit of US envoy Robert McFarlane; the article in the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa caused wide comment in the Arabic-reading world; also we should not forget the crash and resultant capture & trial in Nicaragua of Eugene Hasenfus — which was, of course, major worldwide news.)

Second, and perhaps more importantly, I cannot find anywhere in any of the cited sources (or in many others besides) any basis for the claim that US Senator Dianne Feinstein was responsible for the leak the Washington Times story was based on. I went through the citations one by one (citation number [11] or 'a b Barry Seal: The Leak' directly refutes this contention, naming Oliver North as the source) and searched through books and the web a long, long time afterward. Nothing. Yet the page declares Feinstein the leaker, twice, as unchallenged fact.

In 1984, Feinstein was the mayor of San Francisco. As the Democratic mayor of what is arguably the most liberal large city in the United States she seems an unlikely candidate to have been briefed into a highly secret, quasi-illegal undertaking being run in Washington by the the National Security Council, the CIA and a hardline anti-Communist Republican White House.

Is this good faith gone awry? Am I missing some vital source somewhere? Is it vandalism? More to the point: How best to resolve it? It's a serious claim if true; especially the seemingly-unlikely statement that Sen. Feinstein leaked it at the behest of Oliver North and for political gain. North and then-mayor Dianne Feinstein? A team? The idea is prima facie absurd.

I realize not every single sentence in an encyclopedia needs a citation. But the way the quoted passage — and the bold statement a few grafs above it on the page — are written seems heavy enough, to me, to graze against NPOV. If these statements are not factual, as well … that's bad. While digging around teh interwebs trying to suss all this out, I found the Barry Seal article reproduced in full several times and unsourced bits from it scattered about like the seeds of future conspiracy theories. (The article's subtle — and irrelevant unless there is further provable reason to suggest this! — hints of JFK-assassination involvement do not help in this regard.) It's a problem.

Shall I just be bold and revise the whole article? It has other problems, as mentioned above. Should I limit it to editing out that claim, or replacing the mentions of Feinstein with something like "an un-named Congressperson"? I suppose I could re-read 'Veil' with an eye towards exactly who the leaker was; it's a thorough overview of those events and Woodward is a reputable source …

I welcome your suggestions.

Ericksommers (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Ericksommers

Frontline interview with Oliver North

The article states:

A story appeared in the Washington Times in 1984 describing the infiltration of the Medellín cartel's operations in Panama and Nicaragua. The alleged purpose was to prove the Nicaraguan Sandinistas' involvement in the drug trade and to build support for the Contra war effort. This leak and subsequent controversy eventually led to the Iran Contra Affair, which unraveled a year later.

The second reference, the Frontline interview with Oliver North, does not support the second and third sentences.

Frontline: Fromer [sic] DEA head Jack Lawn says that he was horrified [that the Seal's cover was blown by newspaper reports] because just a day before he had given authorization to his people, who were operating undercover with Seal, to go forward in their undercover operation.

North: I certainly don't blame him for that. I mean I was horrified. I think anybody who even knew about the operation was horrified. But I would remind you again there were lots of us who were horrified frequently by things that ultimately appeared in the newspaper. And I'm certainly a willing witness to that, of clandestine operations by the Reagan Administration that showed up in the newspaper. Not just American newspapers, but in my particular case, one overseas. I mean we were adamant that we wanted to show and demonstrate through apprehensions and prosecutions the role of the Communist government in Nicaragua in bringing drugs into this country. Processing plants that were set up in Managua and its environs by the Sandinista regime to give them hard currency. And their engagement in the narcotics trafficking into this country. And the best way to do that wasn't in the Washington Times or the Washington Post or anything else. The best way to do that was with prosecutions. And there were Sandinista officials who were photographed getting on and off that aircraft that Barry Seal was flying at the behest of the U.S. government that proved that they were involved in that trafficking.

First of all, the statement in the Wikipedia article is not clear on whether the "alleged purpose" is referring to the alleged purpose of the story or the leak that led to the story. Regardless, North said "we were adamant that we wanted to show and demonstrate through apprehensions and prosecutions the role of the Communist government in Nicaragua in bringing drugs into this country." He certainly did not say he leaked information "to prove the Nicaraguan Sandinistas' involvement in the drug trade and to build support for the Contra war effort." The Frontline interview also does not state that the "leak and subsequent controversy eventually led to the Iran Contra Affair". The Iranian side was revealed in a leak by Mehdi Hashemi to a Syrian paper and the Contra side came to light after Eugene Hasenfus's plane - the same one Seal flew - was shot down. -Location (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• From Oliver North's Frontline interview, second paragraph: "You heard about this because you got a briefing?

Well, as the world now knows, I was deeply involved by that point in time in assisting the Nicaraguan resistance and in various policy initiatives in Central America. This was a clandestine operation undertaken to prove that the Sandinistas, and indirectly the Cubans who were supporting the Sandinistas, were involved in the trafficking of narcotics into the United States. You have to remember that the accusation was being made that it was the Nicaraguan resistance doing it. When in point of fact, we knew that the Sandinistas were, and this is a guy who gave us, you know, an opportunity to prove it. "

If you're not willing to revert your edit accordingly, I guess I'll start an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to have a discussion about the article. The article states "The alleged purpose was..." but as written it begs the question "The alleged purpose of what?" The story? The leak? The infiltration of the Medellín cartel's operations? If you're trying to draw attention to the purpose of the DEA's sting operation, then it shouldn't be interjected between the bit about the Washington Times story and the leak that led to the Washington Times story.

Again, the Frontline interview also does not state that the "leak and subsequent controversy eventually led to the Iran Contra Affair". HERE is the Iran-Contra report. Help me find the bit about the Washington Times article and/or Barry Seal. -Location (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Barry Seal article

Here are two acceptable and two unacceptable sources for the article:

• Shannon, Elaine (1988). Desperados: Latin drug lords, U.S. lawmen, and the war America can't win. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-81026-0.
• Gugliotta, Guy; Leen, Jeff (1989). Kings of cocaine. New York: Harper Paperbacks. ISBN 978-0-06-100027-0.

Shannon was a reporter for Time in the mid to late 80s. Gugliotta and Leen were reporters for the Miami Herald. Although the books are old and the details may need correction, these are solid journalistic accounts that put Seal's story in context.

• Reed, Terry; Cummings, John (1994). Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA. New York, NY: S.P.I. Books. ISBN 978-1-56171-249-6.
• Hopsicker, Daniel (2001). Barry & 'the boys': the CIA, the Mob and America's secret history. Noti, OR: Mad Cow Press : Distributed to the trade by Little Red Hen. ISBN 978-0-9706591-0-1.

These are two books that have both been used in the past in the this article. Both are seriously non-RS. Reed is yet another case of someone claiming to be a CIA operative without a scrap of paper to back it up. Hopsicker's book was originally self-published (Mad Cow), but it is now available from the emphatically non-RS Trine and Day.Rgr09 (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination and alleged CIA drug trafficking are two of my favorite Wikipedia subjects right now... and Hopsicker is one of the guys who manages to tie them together! Love it! -Location (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barry Seal. 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/20090122214512/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/barry_seal/16.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/barry_seal/16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122214518/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/barry_seal/17.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/barry_seal/17.html

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) 08:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

American Desperado claims

The book American Desperado (apparently ghosted by Evan Wright for Jon Roberts) repeats much of the Seal as CIA agent claims of the Reed and Hopsicker books. See especially the footnote on p. 319, where Wright claims that Seal learned to fly with the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol, "whose members included future presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald," worked with "Operation 40", did clandestine work for CIA while working as a TWA pilot, etc. None of this information is sourced, but it could not have come from Roberts, who apparently did not meet Seal until the 1980s. For all these claims, Del Hahn's book, cited in the main article, is far more reliable than Wright's. Hahn interviewed Seal's family and closest friends, including Eddie Duffard, the flight instructor who taught Seal to fly, went over Seal's military records from the early 1960's, read court records the 1972 "gun-running" case that got Seal fired from TWA, and interviewed one of the customs agents involved. He found zero evidence for any of this claptrap. Based on Hahn, I've deleted (again) the claim that Seal flew in Civil Air Patrol as a teenager. Please discuss here before adding questionable material from American Desperado or other such works. Rgr09 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Kwitny story

The article currently cites an article in the Wall Street Journal by Jonathan Kwitny that casts doubt on the sting operation in Nicaragua. Although written by a well-known investigative reporter and published in the highly reliable WSJ, this is a very problematic article, contradicting several other accounts of the incident on numerous points. As a small sample, in the quote that the article uses, Kwitny states:

• Los Brasiles, the airport where Seal's plane landed, was not a military airport. Kwitny claims this undermines the basis for linking Defense Minister Humberto Ortega to the operation.
• AUSA Richard Gregorie said 'he could find no information beyond Mr. Seal's word tying any Nicaraguan official to the drug shipment.'
• President Reagan identified Federico Vaughn as a top aide to Interior Minister Tomas Borge, but Kwitny writes that 'federal prosecutors and drug officials now say they aren't sure who he is.'

All other accounts I've seen agree that Los Brasiles was a military airport. Vaughn's role as an aide to Tomas Borge is generally accepted in most accounts, and the photos of Vaughn are evidence outside of Seal's word that elements of the Sandinista government was involved. Other parts of the article not cited in the article are even more problematic. For example, Kwitny says that during the Reyes trial in Las Vegas, when asked about his arrest for smuggling explosives in 1972, Seal testified that the explosives were for 'CIA-trained personnel trying to overthrow Cuba's Fidel Castro.' Yet Hahn's book Smuggler's End quotes the trial transcript as follows: 'Q: Was it connected with the CIA? A:It was alleged to be. I had no direct knowledge of that.' Kwitny's description is clearly inaccurate. Based on all this, I propose to drop the Kwitny story as a source, but I'm interested in hearing any comments. Rgr09 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The reminds me of Robert Parry's reporting on the October surprise conspiracy theory. Kwitny's report is not a reliable source in this context (e.g. The Contra Story indicates that Vaughan was known to the US as early as 1982), but it could be used with attribution if discussed by reliable sources (e.g. those outside the walled-garden of conspiracy theorists). Here is the edit first mentioning Kwitny's report and here is the edit that expanded it. Note that the very next edit removed the url because it is to a blacklisted conspiracy website. While the motivation for adding that material here should not matter, it appears to me that Kwitny's report is used by CT's to imply that the Reagan administration lied to cover-up alleged CIA involvement in drug trafficking. -Location (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I will drop the story, which is way too problematic. Kwitny also cites four "Contra pilots" in the story, but names only two: Gary Betzner and Michael Tolliver. Tolliver gave a deposition in the Christic suit in March 1987, and is heavily cited in Sheehan's 1988 affidavit. Hahn has several pages on Tolliver (p. 221-223), and not surprisingly, describes his claims, especially about Seal, as totally unreliable. Rgr09 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Betzner is not credible either, but I suspect you already knew that. The middle few paragraphs here give a credible explanation for why convicted drug smugglers pointed the finger at the CIA. I was about to joke that the only pilot who hasn't made a claim about Barry Seal is Tosh Plumlee, then I took a look at what the internet had to say. Sheesh! -Location (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the range of websites that cite Plumlee is impressive. More recently, he is also an important source for conspiratorial claims about the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena. His claims have spawned extensive coverage in LA Weekly in the US and Proceso in Mexico, as well as two books, one in English and one in Spanish (not to mention creeping into the Wikipedia article on Camarena via an article from El País). I have still not fixed this, but it should be done soon. In terms of sheer scale of inaccuracy and breadth of coverage, however, Plumlee is still far behind Oswald LeWinter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgr09 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Give him time because he's working on it! As far as I'm concerned, any source that gives any credence to the claims of either one should be scrubbed as unreliable. Schou, for example, has written about Plumlee's stories for over a decade. I guess there is a certain gullible segment of his readership that eats up those stories. -Location (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Made in America is "comedy"?

Made in America is "comedy"?

Will any who laughed while watching it please contact me at . . .

It's not the least bit funny.

I don't mean that as a criticism, and I see that Comcast calls it a comedy, too, but again, it's not funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:C002:FD40:2D20:AF7A:43CD:DC3F (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Made in America" != "American Made". Also, funny can be different things :) -- Evilninja (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"It is unknown whether they were hired by Pablo Escobar, head of the Medellín Cartel, or the CIA."

Unless the contract killers do confirm neither of that, there will be a reason to remove that sentence. Emotioness Expression (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There was specific evidence at the trial, and later, of the direct involvement of the Ochoas in the murder of Seal, from three different people: Max Mermelstein, Carlos Uribe, and Fernando Arenas. This evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict all three of the Colombians arrested at their 1987 trial. There was zero evidence in the record regarding the CIA. We do not have to wait for the now aged or dead murderers to admit they did it in order to state that they did it at the behest of the Ochoas, or that Cardona-Salazar, Carlos Lehder, and Pablo Escobar were parties to the plot to kill Seal. I have changed the lead to state the facts and will add the supporting sources and content to the section on Seal's murder. Rgr09 (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Article rewrite

I now think the only way to fix this very problematic article is a rewrite. I am using as primary sources Del Hahn's biography of Seal, and Gugliotta and Leen's account of the rise of the cocaine trade in the 1980s. Both of these are discussed on this page. Please give me a day or two to put this back into readable shape. Rgr09 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Very good work! -Location (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Film section

Removed some comments in the film section about Double-Crossed which were not sourced; also removed two citations which referred to text versions of newspaper/magazine articles. These did not refer to the film, and had no obvious place in the article. Even if relevant, text versions of articles (the custom in usenet forums) should be avoided, for reasons of copyright and accuracy; just cite the original source. Rgr09 (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

C-123K

A paragraph recently added to the article discusses the C-123K plane that Seal used in the undercover operation against the Medellin cartel as follows:

The same aircraft, piloted by Eugene Hasenfus was shot down over Nicaragua barely a year later, having been used by Southern Air Transport, a CIA front company, to smuggle arms and equipment to the Contras, and allegedly smuggle cocaine back to the US on the return journey.

References

The NYT article cited here does not support most of the statements made. NYT does not say SAT was a CIA front company, or that SAT was the one who was smuggling arms and equipment to the Contras. NYT does not mention one word about alleged cocaine smuggling to the U.S. on the return journey. I am deleting the addition, please discuss here before reinserting. Rgr09 (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott on Seal

The section on the Nicaraguan undercover operation was recently revised, based on the book Cocaine Politics (written by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall). The revision was as follows:

Seal returned to the Los Brasiles airfield in Nicaragua on June 25. The pickup went as planned this time, and the cameras successfully photographed Seal and several individuals in civilian clothing, later reported as Nicaraguan soldiers and officials, as well as members of the Medellin Cartel, loading cocaine onto the plane. While later widely reported that Seal was directly aided by the Ochoa Brothers, Pablo Escobar> Later Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha (another important cartel member), and Federico Vaughan, multiple sources contradict each other regrading who was present in the photographs, with only Escobar and Seal clearly identifiable. Oliver North, for example, who kept close tabs on the operation, made mention in his notes only of Escobar and Seal. On his return to the U.S. Seal landed the plane at Homestead Air Force Base and the drugs were transferred into a Winnebago camper, which Seal turned over to his Colombian contact.

References

Some of the text in the addition seems to have been scrambled. I am removing the revisions from Scott & Marshall and reverting back to the previous version. Here are some comments. First, Seal testified concerning his multiple trips to Nicaragua before a grand jury, which returned an indictment against the Medellin cartel members plus Federico Vaughan. He testified in open court concerning his Colombian and Nicaraguan trips at the Miami trial of the cartel distributors. Although the cartel members were not in custody to be tried, the Miami distributors were, and were all convicted. In fact, after the first day of Seal's testimony, three of the four defendants changed their pleas to guilty. As far as I can tell, Scott does not mention the indictment or trial in his book at all. Please correct me if I am wrong. In fact, Scott skips ALL of Seal's undercover work and court testimony, except to quote one paragraph from Gugliotta and Leen, which he describes as a "DEA-assisted book". He has virtually nothing else to say about Seal except to add a truly dubious account of how Seal was finally enrolled as a DEA informant. Gugliotta and Leen, and especially Hahn, did extensive interviews with ALL of the people involved in Seal's enrollment. Scott and his co-author Jonathan Marshall did NONE. All of this is exceptionally bad for Scott's attempt to discuss Seal's role in drug smuggling and as a DEA informant, and is strong reason to avoid using his book in the article. Rgr09 (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nicaraguan undercover work

A long section was added disputing the account of Seal's undercover work in Colombia and Nicaragua given in the article. I have moved this to the controversies section for now. Most of this is based on Cocaine Politics by Scott and Marshall and has many questionable elements. Rgr09 (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Beginning comments on the recently added section described above. The section includes the following claims based on Cocaine Politics (CP):

[Federico] Vaughn's cousin, Barney Vaughn, was an employee of the Popular Bank and Trust Company, used during the Iran Contra affair to funnel money to the Contras, in cooperation with Issac Kattan.

References

CP says: "A third bank, the Popular Bank and Trust Company, was used by the State Department to transmit funds to the Contras. According to Jack Terrell, it had been owned by deposed Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza until his murder in 1980. It also allegedly employed a cousin (Barney Vaughan) of Federico Vaughan..." The endnotes give as the source for these claims "interview with Jack Terrell, June 24, 1989." Jack Terrell, AKA Colonel Flaco, was an ex-con who was a major source for much of CP. This is very bad for the book's credibility. Scott himself has acknowledged problems with Terrell's credibility. Terrell made news accusing Philippine Foreign Secretary, Raul Manglapus of arranging the assassination of a rebel military leader. He also gave testimony in William Pepper's lawsuit on the MLK assassination, substantiating the existing of a supposed army assassin. Other than Terrell, there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of Federico's "cousin" Barney. Note also that it is inaccurate and misleading to describe State Department humanitarian aid to the Contras in this way. I have deleted the passage. Rgr09 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Another paragraph from the added section says:

One former contra, in an interview with researchers in the early 1990s alleged that while Seal had indeed been fired on and forced to land by the Nicaraguan army, as he reported, he had not unloaded his cargo, and the photographs were not taken in at the Managua airport at all, but at the Corn Island airstrip, several miles off the coast.

This claim is unsourced, but it probably comes from CP (100-101): "One veteran of the Contra scene, who has proved reliable on other matters, has told us that these photographs were not taken in Nicaragua at all, but at a small Carribean airstrip on Corn Island." The Corn Islands are in fact a part of Nicaragua, and the "veteran of the Contra scene" is probably Jack Terrell again; he claimed more than once that Colombian cocaine was smuggled through a Corn Island airport into Costa Rica.

The paragraph added here confounds Seal's first and second flights to Nicaragua (he was shot down the first time, and took the pictures on cameras in the C-123, his second flight). CP's position on all this is confused in the extreme.

In any case, the C-123 flight was described by Seal under oath in open court; any fraud would have put the DEA agents who supervised the flight and the prosecutors who presented the case in court in prison. Seal was not the only one on the plane; his co-pilot was Emile Camp and the flight engineer was an aircraft mechanic named Peter Everson. Del Hahn interviewed Everson, and he confirmed the story. In addition to the three flights described in the article, Seal first flew to Managua on May 20, 1984 with Felix Bates, one of the four people indicted (and convicted) in the Miami trial, to check out the Los Brasiles field. They were escorted to the field by Federico Vaughan (Hahn, p. 90). This trip, like all the others, was monitored by the DEA. Seal could not have faked a landing at Los Brasiles even if he had wanted to. But why would he want to? Scott's entire claim here is conspiratorial. The DEA deliberately faked the landing, the AUSA who prosecuted the case knowingly abetted their fake, all at the behest of the deep state. I have deleted this passage as conspiratorial tripe. Rgr09 (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Another paragraph from the added section says:

when members of the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime attempted to call the Managua phone number Seal provided as his contact with Vaughn, they discovered that the building to which the call was placed had been rented by the US Embassy since 1981, with embassy staff stationed to said office since 1985. William Hughes, chairman of the subcommittee at the time asserted that the embassy official responsible for renting the building was expelled from Nicaragua, and that he considered the allegations of high-level collusion between the Medellin Cartel and the Sandinista government to be a fabrication by members of the US intelligence community.

References

To go through this line by line would take walls of text. To simplify, Scott did not write what he is alleged to write, FAIR did not write what it is alleged to write, and Hughes did not say what he is alleged to say. Since none of the cites support the addition, I have removed it. If there is a question about the passage, please discuss here, do not just revert. Rgr09 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Another paragraph from the added section says:

The DEA rapidly distanced itself from the claims of official Nicaraguan involvement in the cocaine trade, particularily after Vice President Bush began to claim that the sandinistas acted as intermediaries between M-19 guerrillas and the Medellin cartel in organizing the 1985 attack on the Palace of Justice in Bogota.

References

As far as I can tell, the DEA did not change its position on official Nicaraguan involvement, if that is supposed to refer to Federico Vaughan. Nor is there anything even in CP to support the idea that there was a relation between DEA statements on Nicaragua and any statements then VP Bush made. What statements? I cannot find these cited in CP. Without real sources this paragraph goes too. Rgr09 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet another paragraph from the added section says:

No photos released to the public depicted uniformed soldiers, with the identification of participants as Nicaraguan officials dependent entirely on Seal's testimony. Federico Vaughn, the only Nicaraguan directly named in the photos was later revealed to be the head of a mid-sized state-run firm, and not a senior advisor to the interior ministry, as alleged by Seal.

Both claims are unsourced, the probable source is CP. Uniformed soldiers DO appear in at least one of the photos Seal took, so CP is demonstrably wrong on this. Some of the photos are available in Guggliota and Leen, others can still be seen in various news articles and videos of Reagan's press conference and Hawkins' press conference. I have seen at least one uniformed soldier in tapes of these. They were introduced as evidence at the Miami trial and are almost certainly still available to the public because of this. Vaughan was head of the Nicaraguan state-run trading company, an important source of government revenue under the Sandinistas. The trading company was part of the Interior Ministry. Both of these claims are therefore in error, and I have removed them. Since they were all that is left of the section, the section is now gone from the article. Rgr09 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Vaughn and Borge

A recent edit marked the following sentence as 'citation needed':

The drugs were unloaded from the plane by the military and Seal and his co-pilot were taken to detention in downtown Managua, where they were released to the cartel's Nicaraguan contact, Federico Vaughan, a senior aide[citation needed] to Tomas Borge, Nicaraguan Minister of the Interior.

The reason given for adding a cn tag is:

citation needed for Vaughan being an actual aide to Borge. Gugliotta & Lean (1989) decribe Borge as Vaughan's alleged boss (see https://books.google.ie/books?redir_esc=y&id=Y3dGino_7DoC&q=Vaughn#v=snippet&q=Borge&f=false), while Hahn (2016), who spells the name Vaughn rather than Vaughan, expresses similar skepticism about his precise status, saying Federico Vaughan, a self-proclaimed high-ranking functionary of the Nicaraguan government. US intelligence sources said he was the senior aide to Tomas Borge ... In the indictment that was subsequently returned in the Southern District of Florida against the Medellin Cartel, Vaughn was described as an assistant to Tomas Borge, Minister of the Interior of Nicaragua. Whatever his official role might have been, Federico Vaughn was a semi-big fish because he was the connection between the Sandinistas and the Medellin cocaine producers. (see https://books.google.ie/books?id=c9xODgAAQBAJ&q=Vaughn#v=snippet&q=Vaughn&f=false).

I have added a reference to this NYT article reporting the Miami indictment. The article describes Vaughan/Vaughn as "an aide to Nicaragua's Minister of the Interior." I have also changed the description in the article from "senior aide" to just plain "aide". If there are further problems, please comment here. Rgr09 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Rgr09. But I'm not sure that this is the right fix. As I understand it, the NYT, as a mere newspaper article (a primary source), is normally deemed a less reliable source than the 2 cited books (secondary sources), but even if NYT were somehow deemed more reliable, we should not suppress the books' viewpoint entirely, as we are supposed to give due weight to all reliable sources, so our text should somehow at least mention the skepticism of those books to our readers. (Relevant guidelines/policies include WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY (Quote:"Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."), WP:TERTIARY, WP:NOTCENSORED, etc). I'm not sure what the best way to do this might be, but perhaps it might be to change 'aide' to 'alleged aide', and add a footnote giving roughly what I said in the reason parameter of my cn. I may or may not do so later, after waiting to see if you have anything to say first. (Then again it's also quite possible that I won't bother, as I'm not sure I'm all that interested). Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I will respond at length, since I feel this specific issue reflects some general problems with the Seal article. First, there is the problem of sources. I don't agree that a newspaper article is in any way a primary source. In this case, DEA files, FBI files, and court documents such as indictments, transcripts, pleadings, orders, etc. are the primary sources. Both the books and the newspaper articles build on these, supplementing with personal interviews and public statements by people or organizations involved.

The NYT article gives a basic fact of the case, which is that the indictment stated that Vaughn was an aide to Tomas Borge (the Indictment spells his name Vaughn). I don't want to cite the indictment since it is a primary source. I give the NYT, which verifies that the indictment says this. It is really that simple. Just because the indictment says this doesn't mean it's true. But to omit the fact that the indictment says this would be deceptive.

There have been doubts raised that Vaughn was a subordinate of Borge, so you suggest writing alleged aide. It is important, however, to at least indicate who alleged. The mention of Vaughn as aide to Borge in the indictment is NOT alleged by Barry Seal. This is said in several low grade sources, so I emphasize this. Vaughn told Seal he was Borge's aide. There are tapes of Vaughn telling Seal this. It is Vaughn's claim, not Seal's allegation.

How about the indictment? It is not credible to suggest that the prosecution was so careless as to do NO investigation of Vaughn and simply put in whatever he said as a basis for a criminal charge. The prosecution had a basis for saying this, outside of the tapes of Vaughn saying it. Vaughn was indicted. They had to be ready to prosecute him if the got hold of him. Dick Gregorie was a VERY effective prosecutor, this is direct evidence of what they knew or at least believed.

The indictment did not charge Borge with being involved in the transaction, and the article as it stands now does not say Borge was involved. The mention of aide to Borge is necessary, however, to explain how Vaughn was able to arrange the accommodations that Seal and the traffickers, visiting in Nicaragua, received. Vaughn could have done this without the support of Borge--perhaps. That would have been an issue if Vaughn had stood trial.

Going on to the books. I do not feel that Hahn has significant doubt on the involvement of Seal, or Vaughn, or even Borge, merely uncertainty as to how deeply Borge was involved. G&L do say 'alleged boss', so perhaps more doubt on their part. There is other material available on Borge and Vaughn and their relationship that could shed light on this. I do not want to put it into an article on Barry Seal. I don't think it belongs there.

The frequent focus on Vaughn and Borge in the comments on WP's Barry Seal article bothers me. This focus comes at least in part from ancient political controversy. Was the Nicaraguan government good guys or bad guys? I don't think this ancient controversy should spill into the article as it has in the past, with outrageous claims about Seal's actions and testimony from really low quality sources forming a big part of the article for years and years. Seal's trial did not prove the government of Nicaragua as a whole, or as a policy, was involved in drug-trafficking. The article does not say that. I think the article's account of Seal's undercover work and courtroom appearances is reasonably NPOV, after a lot of work. Please help keep it that way. Rgr09 (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you were right and I was wrong regarding the NYT being a primary source. So sorry about that.

I still think this particular item is POV, in that it fails to give the reader any indication of the skepticism about this matter in the two main sources for our article (including the book which was originally misleadingly cited on this point in our article, which is basically what got me involved here), contrary to the requirement to give due weight to all reliably sourced points of view.

Incidentally, it is a bit strange to read you describing the prosecution's claim that Vaughn was an aide to Borge as 'a basis of a criminal charge' (being an aide to Borge is a job description, not a crime, nor evidence of a crime). And I have not read Hahn's book in full, but the bits that I have quoted suggest to me (and I would expect to many other readers as well) that Hahn has little doubt about Vaughn's involvement, and that he was a 'semi-big fish' in Nicaragua, but that he may well have quite a lot of doubt about Borge's involvement, since he repeatedly uses skeptical language on the matter of Vaughn's links to Borge ("self-proclaimed", "Whatever his official role might have been"), and this is of course consistent with G&L's "alleged". Also when you say "But to omit the fact that the indictment says this would be deceptive. " means that you are unwittingly defending an article which, at least according to you, is and always has been 'deceptive', given that the article has never said that "the indictment says this" - it used to misleadingly say that G&L say this, and it now correctly says that NYT says this; the indictment is not mentioned.

And I could go on. But I won't bother, because it seems that to do so would be far more hassle than it's worth. Wikipedia is already full of such relatively minor apparent POVs, and other such apparent minor disservices to our readers, and one more or one less won't make all that much difference to them, while the hassle might make quite a lot of difference to me. So, having said my piece, I will probably take no further part in this (unless perhaps I find unduly provocative any reply you may or may not choose to make, and I may well still do nothing even then).

Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Take a careful look at the context in which Gugliotta and Lean refer to Tomás Borge as "Frederico Vaughn's alleged boss". They are discussing Edmund Jacoby's article in the July 17, 1984 issue of The Washington Times. Although Seal and Vaughn are not named in that article, Jacoby clearly references Vaughn three times as "Mr. Borge's 'right hand man'". At that point in time - the point in time that Gugliotta and Lean are writing about - they were still allegations from unnamed sources. The arrests occur that day and then three days later, the DEA files an affidavit in which Vaughn is called Borge's aide (e.g. WaPo July 20, 1984,WaPo July 28, 1984, both WaPo articles here). (Gugliotta and Lean also mention that Vaughn told Seal he was Borge's aide and that Oliver North had noted that Vaughn worked for Borge.) As you noted Kings of Cocaine originally came out in 1989, well before the CIA Inspector General's 1998 report in which Vaughn was definitively identified as having held the position of Borge's subordinate and aide.

For what it is worth, I also don't share the interpretation that Hahn did not believe Vaughn worked for Borge in the Interior Ministry; which is different than stating Vaughn worked to smuggle drugs on Borge's behalf. - Location (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Shannon appears to have written that S did not know exactly how V was connected to the Nicaraguan power structure, and that it was the CIA who advised the DEA that V was an assistant to B. Page 175 of the 1986 President's Commission on Organized Crime does state "...and according to Seal, Frederico Vaughn, a personal assistant to Interior Minister Thomas Borges, arranged for him to return to the United States in another plane"; however, "according to Seal" appears to refer to what Vaughn arranged and not his position. Kwitney wrote that the Nicaraguan government said V was a deputy manager of an export-important company run by the Sandanista government in 82-83, but had left that position prior to S's flight. Those who believe the CIA-was-in-cahoots-with-the-Contras-to-smuggle-drugs conspiracy theory tend to use "alleged aide" or take what Kwitney found at face value. (Edit: I forgot that I posted this link above three years ago that confirms the US knew about V well before S's flight.) - Location (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus and Location:I apologize if my comment above was provocative. I did not intend it to be, perhaps I went on too long or should have worded it differently. I also apologize if I gave the impression that I 'owned' the article. It is not my article, it is a wikipedia article. There is a section on controversies over Seal and his career at the end of the article, if you feel more is needed on Vaughn and Borge, I suggest that a sub-section there is a good place to add it. I also apologize for the original bad sourcing, which omitted the fact that the V/B relationship was stated, or claimed, or alleged, in the indictment of Vaughn et al. I should have had multiple citations there to clarify. Rgr09 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Rgr09, there was absolutely no need for you to apologize, as I did not mean to imply anything you wrote so far has been provocative, as it hasn't. It was really just my general way of saying in this kind of situation "I'm giving up, and thus leaving you to have the last word, unless something is said to provoke me back into the discussion, so I'm hoping nothing is said to do that". Somewhat ironically, you, and/or my own perhaps unwise wording, have now somehow managed to temporarily get me back in without you being in any way provocative Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"Seal was probably smuggling marijuana"

I think there's evidence that he did smuggle marijuana. Did somebody look further about it rather than at the surface? Sometimes, it's hard to find what has been claimed but never present evidence to the table. Emotioness Expression (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The article states: "By 1976, Seal was probably smuggling marijuana." In context, I inferred that it was the exact date/year for marijuana smuggling that was questionable. @Rgr09: Thoughts? - Location (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe look for it on the internet, or look for any details about it in his biographies? Emotioness Expression (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The GBooks version of Hahn states: "By his own admission, Seal began smuggling small quantities of marijuana by air beginning in early 1976."[1] I will make a change, but I'm fairly certain that Rgr09 has read the actual book. - Location (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Movies

I watched a movie with Barry seal involved and I'm pretty sure it was not American made or double crossed does anybody know what it is 2601:547:B02:1480:D96E:1829:C8A3:F800 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Inflation $$$ including his bounty

Add the inflation $$$ amounts. His June 1985 bounty of $500K is worth a lot more today, to the tune of $1.4M NotBond007 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)