Jump to content

Talk:Kiki Camarena/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

For what it's worth...another legacy

A memorial statue of Enrique Camarena sits in the lobby of the public library in Vallejo, California. Why Vallejo?

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Because a national foundation was created in his honor. That planned statue is at the courthouse in Vallejo: [1]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Source

  • http://books.google.com/books?id=qbjZAAAAMAAJ&q=Kiki+Camarena&dq=Kiki+Camarena&hl=en&ei=BGphTseqKczUgAevxdCWAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAg
  • Gilbert, James N. Criminal Investigation: Essays and Cases. Merrill, 1990. ISBN 0675212006, 9780675212007

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nickname

references indicate his nickname was kiki, not kike, regardless of whether this is a feminine name in spanish. any evidence that his nickname was not kiki should be presented first. And, to anyone completely ignorant of this word, kike is a slur against jews, so there better be a good reason (ie better references than the DEA) for replacing this nickname. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Enrique Camarena was not a Jew, so I am sure you realize that his nickname was used in a completely different context. Kike is the nickname used for the name Enrique and is a very common nickname in Latin America. Some references to Enrique's nickname being Kike:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]

Next are some references specific to DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar being nicknamed Kike:

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]
  5. [8]
  6. [9]
  7. [10]
  8. [11]
  9. [12]
  10. [13]
  11. This reference is straight from the DEA: [14]

Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that you (user MDEVER802) "established" is that you did not read nor used the talk page, and that political correctness in USA prompted the nickname change, as shown by Google hits. Following this, and WP:COMMONNAME I will allow your edit - rather performed as a bully. Please discuss changes to articles when they are contested, and void Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed some no longer valid and poor references from the above links. That being said, I think you amply made your case, Enrique's nickname in Spanish was "Kike". I think that both nickname variants should be displayed, that because this is the English Wikipedia, we should list the English version of his name and also list the Spanish version for completeness. Banaticus (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not edit other people's posts other than format. The point is not who is right (we all are) but that this is the English language wikipedia and it has preference for using English language references, and per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the "most common name" in English. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk)
Right, which is why the lead-in sentence uses his English nickname. For completeness, however, we should list both, just so this little edit war doesn't happen again. By the way, just to clarify, are you saying that you objected to my removal of dead links and urbandictionary.com as good references in your post? If so, I apologize. I feel that my edit make your post stronger, however, because it basically only shows good valid references. As I said, you amply made your point. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference

John McPhee "The Gravel Page." The New Yorker 71:46 (29 January 1996), 44ff. McPhee (in one of 3 stories about forensic geology) describes the FBI forensic geologist's work that proved that Camarena's body was not unearthed at the place that the Mexican Federal Police announced when they produced the body. The geologist's ability to locate the actual original burial site (a dozens and dozens of miles away) by analyzing soil clinging to the body for it's mineral content and unique characteristics is fascinating and compelling, and the Police had not counted on this. The evidence, presented by the FBI geologist in court, lead directly to the convictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhyoliteTopaz (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

discrepancies

this article states that: "On 1984, acting on information by Camarena, 450 Mexican soldiers backed by helicopters destroyed a 1000-hectere marijuana plantation known as 'Rancho Búfalo', where more than 3,000 farmers worked these fields,[1] the annual production which was later valued at $8 billion"

how ever, another one thats talking about Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, person who was running Rancho Búfalo, states that "An undercover agent from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Enrique Camarena managed to infiltrate deep into the drug trafficking organization and had become close to Félix Gallardo. On 1984, acting on information by Camarena, 450 Mexican soldiers backed by helicopters destroyed a 1000-hectere marijuana plantation known as 'Rancho Búfalo', where more than 10,000 farmers worked these fields, the annual production which was later valued at $8 billion."

So witch is it 3,000 or 10,000 theres a huge difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uku1234 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I edited both articles to read: "where thousands of farmers worked these fields..."

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk)

The golf tournament held in honor of Mr. Camarena is held in Miami, not Fresno. There is a tournament in Fresno affiliated with the Camarena Health Center, however that has nothing to do with this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.29.4.205 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

This article is prohibitionist propaganda, POV to the extreme. The man was sent on a fool's errand, killed, and now he's a propaganda poster. It need cleanup, and a more balanced point of view. If it weren't for drug prohibition, the man would not have been killed by some group of Al Capones like he was. (24.68.140.36 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

It is a well-known fact to any LEO involved with Mexican drug activity that corruption exists, from the lowest rurale right up to the top, in Mexico's government. The U.S. government and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have willingly turned a blind eye to this in their greed for profits at the expense of both the American and Mexican citizens. People like Enrique Camarena, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campean pay the price for that greed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.104.98 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Where was he born? Why no one mentions the book "Desperados" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galindes (talk • contribs) 10:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


--> Update information about this entry. According to recent data, the DEA was responsible for the murder of Camarena (http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=355283) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.82.178.50 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Article name change

Is there any consensus on renaming the article to his given name? It should be enough to mention it (his alleged nickname) in the lede, especially given concerns above concerning the arguably (not that Id be inclined to do so - incidentally the 'spanish version' is a slur in English, to the best of my knowledge) borderline slur in addition to use of diminutive for a murder victim apparently because the gentleman had a spanish sounding name, etc. I'm just not convinced wikipedia is a venue for adding insult to injury, arguably unless someones going to argue this was his cover story for witness protection. We all have our motivations but I'm not seeing any reasonable person needs to see this devolve to the point of childishness. I'd also think Giulio Regeni warrants a mention, if not Wayno Simmons. As well as the other agent(s) relatively recently. What do you think. I'd also think Micheles glorification of violence is relevant at some point, even if it only illustrates the mentality which causes these sorts of problems at the highest levels. I've had all sorts of runins with these guys myself but even I'm unconvinced we have to keep kicking them even after they're dead. Incidentally, what was the deal they refused to name the training center after him but put his name on a golf competition instead? Seriously. Personally I think this guy was set up or scapegoated, if not the witness protection mentioned above. Plus with this 'the CIA did it' I'd think we'd be looking at someone like Wayne Simmons. If he's who I think he is, he's nothing nice when it comes to things like torture. 55378008a (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kiki Camarena. 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:

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) 17:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiki Camarena. 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:

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) 05:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam service

Although Camarena served in the Marines during the Vietnam War era, no reliable sources found as of yet state that he actually served in Vietnam during the war. Accordingly, Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War was removed from the article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Year of graduation needs change

Year of high school graduation should be 1966 according to the source. Chrose1 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits (May 2020)

Jaydoggmarco, Darouet, Ringerfan23, and Classified20, please reach a consensus on the talk page (or a noticeboard) about the desired contents of the article, especially related to the section on the CIA's involvement. Feel free to ping me or any other admin before the 3 days' protection is up if there's a consensus and the article can be unprotected. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Eclipse of the Assassins can't be used as a source due to the numerous factual errors (as shown here[1],) It also lists conspiracy theorist Tosh Plumlee as a source. As well as Richard Brenneke, a central figure in the October Surprise 1980 conspiracy theory who falsely claimed to have worked for the CIA. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
We need a reliable source to state that a book is unreliable. @Jaydoggmarco: do you have a reliable source of this kind? The book is written by two university professors, published by an academic press, and has multiple favorable reviews published in academic literature. Citing a wikipedia editor's opinion, when they have no credentials and admit they have only read a small portion of the book, isn't sufficient. One thing you could consider is finding a reliable source that criticizes the book, and including that criticism with a citation in the article.
@Enterprisey: I know you're just trying to do your job by responding to edit warring here — but if you're willing to help with discussion here that would be appreciated by both of us I think. -Darouet (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually the book is unknown and as a result a detailed debunking is hard to find. Given that the people interviewed and cited in the book are known kooks and liars i think that would be reason enough for not using the book as a source. I don't have the book so someone who has it has to do it. You make it sound like Kiki being killed by the cia is a mainstream viewpoint held by journalists and historians when it's actually only held by a handful of fringe sources and you have not shown any evidence to prove otherwise yet you continue to spam this article. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jaydoggmarco: thanks, those are interesting ideas. But if the University of Wisconsin publishes this book,[2] and if two academic journals written by professional historians support the book,[3][4] and if media[5] and even the DEA official investigating Camarena's case agree, why should I trust you, and not them? Especially when you admit that you haven't read these sources, and don't have any sources to offer contradicting them? -Darouet (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say i didn't read them, I said that they are fringe books so finding info on how to debunk them is impossible, The two DEA agents are friends with Tosh Plumlee, Eclipse doesn't even have any reviews on amazon. It's very clear that you have a agenda to push and that anything i say to you will fall on deaf ears. [6] Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jaydoggmarco: Would you be willing to participate in a "dispute resolution" process, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? An experienced editor would mediate between our concerns to help us arrive at an agreement. @Enterprisey: Last time this was an issue I went to WP:BLPN, where Nomoskedasticity was the only editor to comment and suggested I just add the content. Having gotten a favorable response there but with Jaydoggmarco adamant that Camarena sources are fringe, I guess I'll try WP:RSN now. -Darouet (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, some of the posts here are hard to take seriously. A book published by UW Press is "fringe"? Because there are no reviews on Amazon?? Give me a break... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment from an otherwise uninvolved editor: I agree with Jaydoggmarco and Rgr09 on this. Any source that relies on Tosh Plumlee (claims to have been in Dealey Plaza during JFK assassination) or Richard Brenneke (known fabricator for claims about October Surprise conspiracy theory) should be treated with extreme skepticism. - Location (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the time to get involved with the complicated issues in this article, but I can offer a few more comments. First, the Kiki Camarena article can indeed be expanded greatly. A simple factual presentation of all the twists and turns in the case would be LONG, but expanding this would, I think, be a much more useful contribution than adding in Barley's WP:REDFLAG claims. There have been close to a half dozen trials and appeals over the Camarena murder, the last of which ended in a major setback for the prosecution when two convictions were tossed in 2017. The USA Today article cited in the article gives some idea of how messy the whole thing has become.
Bartley is basing his account in part on some of the people mentioned in that article, including Hector Berrellez and his "witnesses". The quote about these witnesses being "incredible" probably does not mean "amazing", but instead "not credible." We will see if the DOJ is able to move forward with this. If not, unfortunately, there will probably not be ANY coverage in newspapers.
In my opinion, Bartley's book is also "not credible". I understand that it seems like publication by the UW Press should mean more, but sometimes it happens that reliable presses publish unreliable books; the JFK assassination has produced more than one unfortunate example of this.
Nor do i feel that the small number of reviews Eclipse has received warrant any great confidence either. I am positive that the two reviews I have seen so far were neither written by people who know much about either the Buendía or Camarena cases. Even so, they are far from ringing endorsements of what should be earthshattering claims, and this is wise.
Bartley cites books by Daniel Hopsicker, by Terry Kent Reed, by Gary Webb, he cites websites like John Simkin's Spartacus Educational. All of these are BAD sources. He relies on Plumlee without any mention of his fundamental unreliability, he relies on Brenneke without any mention of his well known unreliability. The list could go on.
Basically, this is a REDFLAG issue. Panster's review (the 'other' source cited below is also Panster) already has criticisms of Bartley, Freije's review has even more criticisms. Equally important, neither addresses some of the basic and KNOWN issues for B&B's account. For the claims that B&B make, you need much stronger support than this. Rgr09 (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Dang! I have not read the book, but Hopsicker, Reed, Webb, and Simkin/Spartacus also taint any publication that cites them.
I removed the bit in the lede that states that former CIA agents have made the allegation that the CIA was complicit. In this context "CIA agents" refer to Tosh Plumlee, and his claims are not mentioned in the body of the article. At the very least, he should be referred to as an "alleged former CIA agent". Here is an example of how reliable sources bungle conspiracy material: Ex-CIA contract pilot had front row view of the JFK assassination, served on team to prevent it, met Oswald. On the other hand, we do have a reliable source describing his penchant for fabrication: "It is noted that Plumlee tells a very confusing, illogical story, with a complete lack of specifics, and that he has indicated that he has, in the past, used his imagination for the purpose of making his story more believable, i.e. in that he has admitted making up names of persons allegedly contacted by him." - Location (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Darouet do you have anything to counter what Location has said. Two other people have also debunked the source. Defend yourself and explain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bfa1:aeb0:10cd:a915:510f:e09f (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Location Another source debunking Simkin/Spartacus and Plumlee. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2013/conspiracy-act "The authors repeatedly cite a website, www.spartacus-educational.com, run by British history teacher John Simkin, as authoritative. But in fact the site simply reproduces a host of conspiracy theories that first appeared elsewhere. “It’s very shoddy, not well-sourced,” says Arthur Goldwag, author of Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies and The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right. In fact, many of the books repeatedly cited in footnotes are other conspiracist tracts offering their own speculations — speculations that Belzer and Wayne elevate to ostensible facts by footnoting them as if theirs were an academic thesis." and "McAdams, author of JFK Assassination Logic: How To Think About Claims of Conspiracy, also does a methodical job on Plumlee, a self-identified CIA pilot who claims he flew counter-conspirators into Dallas to try to halt the assassination. Belzer buys his story. But McAdams and others who have looked into it report that nobody can find a shred of credible evidence that such a thing ever happened. Plus, McAdams cites National Archives material on how law enforcement found Plumlee a frequent, unreliable crank who pestered them needlessly, along with FBI records indicating Plumlee had fabricated crime-related information in the past."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bfa1:aeb0:10cd:a915:510f:e09f (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Darouet stop adding back information without reaching a consensus. Please respond on the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bfa1:aeb0:69d3:f43c:2778:b2df (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
IP: Please sign your posts and stop edit warring. A rough head count of the editors who have posted on the talk page and are responsible for reverting the passage seems to be split. - Location (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
IP, your efforts to ping me aren't resulting in my being notified. I'm not sure if that's because you're not signing your posts, or because you're sometimes using improper formatting when trying to ping me, or if it's a problem on my end (it might be). I'll respond in the section at the bottom. -Darouet (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eclipse_of_the_Assassins
  2. ^ Bartley, Russell; Bartley, Sylvia (2015). Eclipse of the Assassins. The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía. University of Wisconsin Press.pp.171, 402–403, 413.
  3. ^ Pansters, Wil (2017). "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico's Cold War". Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (103): 143–155. doi:10.18352/erlacs.10245. JSTOR 90012018.
  4. ^ Freije, Vanessa (2016-11-01). "Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía". Hispanic American Historical Review. 96 (4): 766–768. doi:10.1215/00182168-3678117.
  5. ^ Bowden, Charles; Molloy, Molly (7 April 2015). "Bowden: How the CIA may have tortured one of America's own". Tucson Sentinel. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  6. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Eclipse-Assassins-Imperial-Politics-Journalist/dp/0299306402

Additional source

Here's another peer-reviewed source we might consider: [15]. Relevant passage:

Fourth, the transformations discussed above acquired additional significance in 1985 when corrupt drug trafficking law enforcement relations led to the kidnapping and murder of DEA agent Enrique ´Kiki´ Camarena and his Mexican pilot Alfredo Zavala. The incident ushered in a new and prolonged phase of US pressure on Mexican authorities. The Camarena affair constituted a turning point in the recent history of state-crime governance in Mexico, as it brought to light the complicity between drug traffickers and the Dirección Federal de Seguridad (DFS), which enjoyed the support of or worked on behalf of the CIA.


Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bartley book

I have started looking at Russell Bartley's book "Eclipse of the Assassins," mentioned in the section above. It will take quite a while to go through it, but it is already worth noting that Bartley lists Tosh Plumlee as a source. Plumlee was also a source for the 2013 Fox news story on CIA involvement in the Camarena kidnapping and murder, and was very likely a source for J. Jesus Esquivel's Spanish language book on the Camarena case (La CIA, Camarena y Caro Quintero: La historia secreta). Unfortunately, Plumlee is not a reliable source. He is best known for his claim to have worked with Mafioso Johnny Roselli as part of a CIA attempt to stop the assassination of JFK (see here). I don't yet know how central he is to Bartley's book, but I would not be in a rush to cite "Eclipse" in the article. Rgr09 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Rgr09: I agree. What do you think about adding it in a "Further reading" section? Would that still be problematic? MX (✉ • ✎) 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @MX:I have even stronger doubts about Eclipse today after reading more of it, including a citation of a deposition from Richard Brenneke, a central figure in the October Surprise conspiracy theory who among other problems falsely claimed to have worked for the CIA. I wouldn't put it anywhere in the articles on either Camarena or Buendía at this point. Rgr09 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @MX and Rgr09: Richard J. Brenneke was cleared of the charge of perjury by a unanimous jury [16], who concluded that his statements about his relationship with the CIA were accurate. Furthermore the Bartley book does not rely strongly on Plumlee, and has received favorable reviews in academia. The description of the book as unreliable is thus based on a false assessment of the book's sources, ignores the book's reception and academic standing, and replaces the policies of WP:V and WP:RS with WP:OR. I don't agree with this approach. Rgr09 if you want to exclude the Bartley source and associated academic sources on this basis suggest that we go to dispute resolution to resolve this issue. -Darouet (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: @Rgr09: Speaking of stuff, we could make a Wikipedia article on the book itself. As per Wikipedia:Notability (books) a book may have an article if there are at least two or more independent secondary sources, which includes book reviews. Use the book reviews as sources and link to them, and it will be easy for the public and fellow Wikipedians to consult the book's reputation. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rgr09: @Darouet: @MX: I have started a Wikipedia article on the book itself at Eclipse of the Assassins. If there are details about the book's sourcing which can affect multiple articles you can use Talk:Eclipse of the Assassins to explain them in detail. It is important to cite the secondary book reviews and/or the page numbers (with ISBNs, if necessary) of the original work. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @WhisperToMe: that's very helpful! Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I'm looking forward to contributing to your article on the book if I can.
If there are enough sources, might also be interesting to start an article on the Justice Department's new investigation into the Camarena murder. From reading newspaper articles on that investigation, it seems there are a lot of details from early investigations that have been described by reliable sources, but are not sufficiently covered here. -Darouet (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war relating to CIA allegations under discussion

I wish people would stop adding AND deleting material under discussion. It is driving me nuts. Rgr09 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Would partial protection be agreeable to the editors here? The dynamic ip's are definitely edit-warring. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
ToBeFree blocked the IP range that was edit-warring, so I think the page should be fine without protection for now. If another IP shows up with the same m.o., then semi-protection is definitely the next step. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rgr09: I understand this, but the added content is quite restrained compared to what's available, and presents an executive summary of the viewpoints of historians on this topic. It's extremely well referenced. I don't feel obliged to indulge a single-purpose IP who is not meaningfully engaged in discussion. I should also note it's much easier to remove material than it is to carefully research and publish it on an encyclopedia. @Hipal: I sought protection since the IP's behavior is clearly disruptive, and since Nomoskedasticity had previously responded to my noticeboard requests by affirming that this content is well supported by academic sources. Wugapodes declined my protection request, correctly noting that there is a content dispute on this page, but incorrectly asserting that single-purpose drive-by editing by IPs (and, occasionally, otherwise mostly inactive accounts) is not disruptive. -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I've asked Wugapodes to reassess the situation. There's almost certainly sock/meatpuppetry going on here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Darouet, it's not germane to argue that "your" view is the correct one. We are trying to follow NPOV as well as BLP with respect to US Government officials who would be implicated and to establish consensus regarding the disputed content. Start an RfC or go to one of the noticeboards and get some experienced feedback on your arguments here if you wish. Your view has not been supported in previous discussions. The IP has been blocked, but the fact that it's an IP or even a sock does not per se invalidate its editorial views. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Update to clarify.13:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not what I argued, and RfCs have already recommended that this content be included, something you would have known if you looked into the history of this discussion. -Darouet (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

List of references for the article

Responding to Hipal's request, here is a list of references for the article with a dissatisfied note at the beginning. Unless stated, I have read the material cited.

The article is putatively about Enrique Camarena. It is radically truncated, with a few details of Camarena's life, a couple of sentences about his work, a confused account of his kidnap/murder, and omits most of the murder investigation in Mexico and America. It also omits most of the lengthy judicial process in both Mexico and the U.S. I regret that so much time has been spent on the talk page over what I think are marginal claims which have been poorly documented and presented, while central events and issues in Camarena's life and murder case are ignored.

Much of what I think is key content for the article can be supplied from two books I recently added to the article's reference section: Elaine Shannon's Desperados and James Kuykendall's O Plato O Plomo. I will not discuss them here. Other sources for key content include newspaper articles from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post. I would not dispute the inclusion of articles from these sources as long as they are relevant, properly sourced and accurately cited.

The dispute in the article is whether to include claims made by various people since 2013. Here are sources for some of these claims.

There are two reviews of Eclipse in academic journals:

There are also journalistic sources for some of the claims. These include:

  • Chaparro, Luis; Esquivel, J. Jesús (2013-10-13). "A Camarena lo ejecutó la CIA, no Caro Quintero". This is the first story on the BJP claims to appear in Proceso. Proceso published a number of stories on their claims in October/November 2013. The link is to a truncated version of the story, if you are interested in reading the Proceso material, the relevant issues (Proceso 1928-1932) are available on issuu.com; I will not list all of the articles.
  • Valdez, Diana Washington (2013-10-19). "Ex DEA Officials: CIA Operatives involved in 'Kiki' Camarena Murder". El Paso Times. This is not available on line, and I have not read it.
  • Lawn, Jack; Taylor, Jack; Shannon, Elaine (2013-10-29). "DEA Lecture Series, Operation Leyenda" (PDF). This is a transcript of a presentation at the DEA museum on the Camarena case; see comments above.
  • Dudley, Steven; Lohmuller, Michael (2013-11-13). "Docs Reveal CIA-Guadalajara Link, Not Conspiracy". Insight Crime: Investigation and Analysis of Organized Crime. This is one of the few responses to the Fox/Proceso coverage of BJP. See comments above.
  • Bowden, Charles (2014-11-18). "Blood on the Corn: A DEA Agent is Tortured and Killed in Mexico". Medium. This is an unfinished book by Bowden as discussed above. Matter.com is an online magazine. This was not done as an article for the Tucson Sentinel. If anyone thinks it makes a difference where it appeared, I'm ready to dispute that claim.

I think these are the main references in the discussion on the talk page.

For those who have not yet seen Darouet's disputed addition to the article, I think the most recent version of it was here Rgr09 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The Medium pieces were republished under the title "Bowden: How the CIA may have tortured one of America's own" by the Tucson Sentinel with the explanation,

In 1985, a murky alliance of Mexican drug lords and government officials tortured and killed a DEA agent named Enrique Camarena. In a three-part series, Blood on the Corn, legendary journalist Charles Bowden finally digs into the terrible mystery behind a hero’s murder — his final story.

The links can be found here:
  • Bowden: How the CIA may have tortured one of America's own [17]
  • Mexico murder of DEA agent becomes int'l obsession [18]
  • Into the killing room: Murder of a DEA agent [19]
  • Why Chuck Bowden's final story took 16 years to write [20]
@Rgr09: Kuykendall's book should be considered important, but he's also a primary source, and that needs to be considered when using him in this article, both for better and worse. He's cited several times in the Bartlett book, where his insights are appreciated and also evaluated critically, as one would expect from a book published by a university press and written by a historian. Without seeking to diminish Kuykendall's importance, there really should be no debate about keeping a primary source as a main source for this article, and excluding a more recent, scholarly secondary source published by a university.
What is the rationale for treating Elaine Shannon's book as a main source here, while excluding scholarly secondary sources? We should use her work, but not while excluding academic sources written decades later, with the benefit of more sources, that also cite Shannon. -Darouet (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Reasons for using Shannon and Kuykendall can be seen in the material I've recently added to the article. None of this material appears in Eclipse. In fact, there is very little information on Camarena in Eclipse at all. I urge you to read and compare these three books. Kuykendall and Shannon are central to an article on Camarena. Eclipse is not. Rgr09 (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The Bartley book prints Camarena's name 540 times, and includes long sections evaluating the circumstances of his killing. You're not going to be able to understand this event if you only consult documents written before 2013. -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiki_Camarena/Archive_1&oldid=1227970548"