Talk:CIA drug trafficking allegations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CIA drug trafficking allegations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Drug Policy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Drug PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Drug PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Drug PolicyDrug Policy articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Clean, fix Fringe, rename.

On 8 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to CIA drug trafficking. The result of the discussion was Moved to CIA drug trafficking allegations.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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