Talk:CIA drug trafficking allegations

Requested move 8 November 2023

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

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

---

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

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

• Oppose. The word "allegations" was chosen in past discussions because so much of the article is unproven allegations. So it seemed appropriate. I think it ought to stay as is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rja13ww33. Also the (unmentioned) changes from lowercase to uppercase are not appropriate per WP:LOWERCASE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support wholeheartedly. These are true facts. Not allegations. Holidayruin (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far better to keep it as is (and, of course, lowercased). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support. A lot of the article consists of allegations at various levels of plausibility, but it's not the subject of the article, the subject is the alleged trafficking, not the phenomenon of allegation. I don't support it over the original (sentence-cased) suggestion, but Alleged CIA drug trafficking is a much more correct title. Remsense聊 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion on the move itself, but if this article is to be moved, it should be to CIA drug trafficking (lowercase) instead of CIA Drug Trafficking (title case), as it is not a proper noun. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment. The original suggestion was formatted in title case, I have edited it to the uncontroversial normative form in order to focus discussion on the main purpose of the proposed move. Remsense聊 21:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose / alternative On review of the article, some but not all of the allegations are substantiated. I would propose an alternative of CIA drug trafficking allegations. This places the key term CIA drug trafficking at the head of the title string. As such, it is more conducive to searches. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I would support this alternative over the present title. Remsense聊 01:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support alternative proposed by Cinderella157 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per reasons given by Xephael.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not to muddy the waters, but what about CIA drug trafficking and allegations? Too clunky? Primergrey (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking the same concept, how to word the title so that it is clear it has occurred and there are also more allegations. It is a bit more clunk, but not bad. I think I still prefer "CIA drug trafficking allegations" Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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

TL;DR

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

It's more allegations or turning a blind eye than anything else. (ergo the title) Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Except for when they admitted to it...

Then had one of their editors neaten up this article. 211.26.229.134 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a waste of their time. Remsense ‥ 论 04:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be much more solid to say that the CIA intentionally sought to create conditions of increased drug trafficking. If that can be attested, then I start to wonder why it matters quite as much (for the purposes of most people who are interested in the subject) if it were agents, assets, or otherwise people unaffiliated with the CIA who were literally moving product. Remsense留 04:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

However, I want to make clear that I have not adequately attested or proven the above—and I would not be comfortable with stating it in an article without multiple clear citations. Remsense留 20:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't buy the "intentionally sought to create conditions of increased drug trafficking". Most RS says it was cases of turning a blind eye to the activities of allies/assets. It happened on both sides of the Iron Curtain in the later stages of the Cold War and was far from some master plan to raise cash for covert agencies or flood ghettos with drugs. (Which is what a lot of people pushing this stuff are getting at.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This is pathetic. CIA's drug trafficking is so obvious, you can literally point to any route of cocaine or heroin smuggling trade, and CIA's fingerprints all over it will be the most clear aspect about it. 198.140.189.134 (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

According to RS, it is not so clear.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Nugan Hand Bank

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

No. It has been sitting in the See Also section since 2012. Burrobert (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Some editor, who I can't recall, was working with me about Nugan Hand, and I was under the impression the Nugan Hand saga was going to be incorporated into this article. It really should be because the scandal was big in Australia in the early 80s and there were swirling rumours of CIA and drug trafficking allegations - though these were doubted by the Royal Commission.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. A huge story at the time. And if you tell that to the young people today, they won't believe you. The relevant content from [1] could be copied across or a fresh approach taken. Burrobert (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Nugan Hand Bank should be the main article but there should be a short section here about the bank and the hair-raising allegations about the bank here. Even if the allegations were untrue. But this article is about allegations, so even allegations from Australia are relevant. Relegating the bank to a "See Also" is invalid.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Still no response...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Your suggested approach is fine. Add a short summary. Burrobert (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)