Talk:CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking

To do
There's still a lot to do here. A summary of scholarly treatment of this issue belongs here; the studies of Peter Kornbluh and Peter Dale Scott are in many ways as important as the congressional hearings. Also, are there already articles on the CIA & heroin in southeast Asia, or the CIA and its LSD experiments in the 50s and 60s? I don't see any but I'm not sure what titles to look for. If not, perhaps this should evolve into a "CIA and drugs" article that includes that older information. (if so, more recent information about trafficking activities in Burma, Kosovo, and Afghanistan might be relevant as well).--csloat 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, are there already articles on the CIA & heroin in southeast Asia, or the CIA and its LSD experiments in the 50s and 60s?


 * This is out of the scope of the article. But there are books on CIA & heroin in southeast Asia, see Cia, which you can expand. There are wikiarticles on the LSD experiments: Project_MKULTRA.


 * A summary of scholarly treatment of this issue belongs here; the studies of Peter Kornbluh and Peter Dale Scott are in many ways as important as the congressional hearings.


 * Agreed, albiet I have never read the book, so I am not much help... Travb (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Scott wrote a book (actually a couple books as I recall) on it. I don't think Kornbluh wrote a book, but he led the National Security Archive (at George Washington U; not the NSA of wiretapping fame) study on the topic and produced a packet of documents that eventually got put on the web - copy of Oliver North's notes acknowledging they knew about drug money, and so forth. Some day I'll look for the documents; I'm sure they're still up at gwu.edu somewhere.--csloat 02:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to get Leslie Cockburns book Out of Control and expand the article based on it. LamontCranston (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very informative and well-researched book, but it came out at the beginning of the public's understanding of this episode; while it is a great source, I'd name "Cocaine Politics" by Marshall and Dale-Scott, and "Dark Alliance" by Gary Webb (and the follow-ups that critically examine the Webb reportage and backlash, such as the book "Kill the Messenger" by Nick Schou and the article "The Life and Times of Gary Webb" by renowned journalist Al Giordano) as more final and comprehensive accounts of the event. 68.193.166.17 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not a single mention of Barry Seal, indictments of Barry Seal, discussion about the Medellin Cartel, Pablo Escobar, Bill Clinton / George HW Bush, Mena AK Airport.. Not a whisper. Can someone please help flesh this out? Rook2pawn (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me exactly what changes you feel are warranted. Why would (for example) this article mention Pablo Escobar?Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From the Barry_Seal article, it specifically mentions his meeting with Pablo Escobar, and he was deeply involved in Sandinista involvement, which was actively an ongoing subject of activity by the CIA. I honestly don't think anyone thinks he just stumbled into Pablo Escobar and the Sandinistas without CIA involvement. Rook2pawn (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The gist of the material currently in the Barry Seal article regarding Nicaragua is that Seal uncovered (not "stumbled onto") the cartel's plan to move its cocaine production to Nicaragua while working with the DEA, not the CIA. If there are problems with that, please discuss on the Seal talk page. I know of no reliable source that has Seal working with the Contras. He was never indicted for this, nor did he say this in court or out. Lacking an RS, Seal doesn't belong in an article on the Contras at all. By your mention of Escobar, Clinton, Bush, and Mena in the same sentence, I know you are thinking of some conspiracy theory, but I'm not sure which one. Eventually some conspiratorial allegations might conceivably go in the Seal article, as long as they are clearly labeled and backed up with sources, but these do not belong here. Rgr09 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make a lot of sense to me (and isn't backed by any RS I am aware of). The notion that you need the CIA to have contact with the Sandinistas and/or the Medellín Cartel is a strange one. The cartel (for example) had something like 750,000 employees. Escobar probably met with all sorts of people every day. (Like a CEO.) In any case, Escobar meeting with Seal has nothing to do with this article as he [Seal] didn't smuggle for the Contras.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

CHECK UP YOUR REFERENCES... IT APPEARS THAT DOJ HAS DELETED ITS WEB PAGES OF THE NOTORIOUS REPORTS... HOPE SOMEONE IS KEEPING BACKUPS.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:6DCC:E600:F1D4:ACA8:EE2F:774 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps it was just moved. - Location (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A patchwork article
This article is basically a patchwork, putting together information from the Kerry Committee report from 1989, the Gary Webb claims from 1996-98, and some general stuff from Allegations of CIA drug trafficking, derived from Alfred W. McCoy, Peter Dale Scott, and so on. The article is generally chronological, but has no real organization otherwise, picking out things here and there without even attempting to connect them.

The chronology is also marred in many places. For example, the Gary Webb and Investigation sections are hopelessly scrambled. Immediately after this, there is a section on the contents of the CIA OIG report, followed by a section on the testimony of Frederick Hitz, the CIA OIG, to the House Special Permanent Committee on Intelligence in March 1998. Yet the OIG report discussed was released in October 1998, months after Hitz's testimony. This error seems to come from Cockburn and St. Clair's book Whiteout (p. 387), which is cited several times in the article.

The section Contents of the Report is in fact an inaccurate summary of pp. 387-388 of Whiteout. Not a good passage to cite from Whiteout; these pages have several other problems in addition to the chronological one. Regardless of errors, the section consists of Cockburn and St. Clair's analysis and claims about just ONE paragraph, paragraph 623 of Part II of the report. Why should this one paragraph be chosen out of the eleven hundred plus paragraphs of Part II for a whole paragraph of discussion, and everything else ignored? Why is there no summary of the report's conclusions? Why should Part I of the report be utterly ignored?

For now I don't even want to bother with fixing things in the article. I do suggest that the separate article on the Kerry Committee Report could profitably be merged here. It's only a couple of paragraphs, and the information it contains is already in this article, for the most part. If anyone thinks this is workable, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Not really a big deal. This article has been here since 2006, and another 9 years of gathering dust won't make any difference. Rgr09 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is one of those articles I look at frequently, but feel stuck as to where to go with it given the vast number of inter-related articles that touch on the subject matter. In the discussion at Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking, I mentioned creating CIA involvement with drug traffickers that would put CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking and Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. In turn, you suggested to that Allegations of CIA involvement in drug trafficking replace Allegations of CIA drug trafficking.
 * Similar to your suggestion, what do you think about creating Allegations of CIA involvement in drug trafficking and merging material from CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking and Allegations of CIA drug trafficking? If we did that, all of the related claims of McCoy, Scott, Webb, and others that cover the various geographic regions (e.g. Far East, Mexico, Central America, etc.) could be mentioned as well as the various investigations that touched on those allegations (i.e. the Kerry Report, the DOJ/OIG report, and the CIA report). I think this would cut down on the redundancies and make the subject matter easier to follow. - Location (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

MrObjectivity2 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)I edited this page because I found the opening to be misleading. The prior edit suggested that the Inspector General's report had cleared the CIA of any wrongdoing, which is untrue. I made it a point not to refer to Gary Webb's reporting in this section, only what the CIA itself has found.
 * First of all, you should probably start a new section for this (rather than posting in a old one). And secondly, the problem(s) with your edit is: it completely omits the fact that the three Federal investigations cleared the CIA of any involvement in the drug trade. (Which doesn't reflect the main body.) Certainly they were aware that members of the Contras (and their supply network) were mixed up in the drug trade....but that's a long way from direct CIA involvement. We probably could change the LEAD a bit to reflect that....but your proposed edit had too many problems. I would suggest getting consensus here first (in a new section) before making anymore edits to the LEAD.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

MrObjectivity2 (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)I can start a new section, but your framing here is indicative of the problem. To say the investigations "cleared the CIA of any involvement in the drug trade" is just false. I'll provide more context in the new section.
 * I mentioned direct CIA involvement. Being aware of someone moving drugs isn't the same thing as you doing it yourself.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

MrObjectivity2 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)It's not the same thing, I agree. But that's not what happened here, as the article should reflect. CIA assets were moving drugs. By the agency's definition, CIA assets=CIA. Framing it in the way you are is extremely misleading. More in the new section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203105932/http://www.commondreams.org:80/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/1213-31.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/1213-31.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible merger with Gary Webb article
Large parts of the article on Gary Webb were recently moved into this article. I agree that the two articles have a lot in common, but I don't agree mass copying or even partial merging is a good solution, and I've reverted the changes. The emphasis and much of the content of the two articles is simply too different. It is MUCH better to do changes here paragraph by paragraph, leaving the article in a much less disturbed, much more coherent state after each edit. I will try to contribute more here in the near future, more or less along these lines.

For the future, however, I believe that rather than moving a lot more content to this article, the current content here may instead best be merged somewhere else. It is largely a ragbag collection of information taken from other articles, which is often better covered elsewhere. Rgr09 (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There should be an article on Wikipedia discussing this topic. If not here, where? I don't think you can tell the tale of this controversy without discussing Gary Webb's allegations and resulting investigations in detail. Nooneisneutral (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Allegations of CIA drug trafficking is a reasonable place. (unsigned comment by Rgr09)


 * Allegations of CIA drug trafficking links to this article as a Main Article. Nooneisneutral (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If the material duplicated from Gary Webb is removed, the content in this article is just two or three articles by Barger and Parry and the Kerry Committee report; the material on the Kerry Committee is redundantly covered in several other articles as well as here, and consists of a paragraph or two. There simply isn't that much to this. Allegations of CIA drug trafficking is a short article that could easily hold all of this. The whole idea of "CIA involvement" in drugs comes from this set of claims and the earlier claims popularized in Alfred W. McCoy's book that the CIA was complicit in heroin trafficking. Merging these articles was under discussion last year, as you can see above. Rgr09 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)\


 * Before I added material from Gary Webb, this article already mentioned Gary Webb and the CIA investigation, including details not found in Gary Webb. I didn't add new subjects to this article, merely more details. Nooneisneutral (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rgr09. There are now massive amounts of details about the subject in Gary Webb and massive amount of details here... and they duplicate each other. IF Webb's reports and the fallout is mentioned here, then all of that should be trimmed and summarized in the article about him. -Location (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead changes
The lead has bounced back and forth at least three times in the last month over two disputed points.

One is an "alleged" argument, either adding the statement that "CIA involvement in trafficking is usually alleged to be connected to the Contra war" or changing it to "The CIA had connections to drug traffickers as part of their support of the Contras in Nicaragua" or some variation.

The second disputed point is the repeated insertion or removal of the statement that of the three federal investigations into Gary Webb's Dark Alliance newspaper series, none of them "found evidence of any conspiracy by the CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States."

For the second point, the article copied most of its description of the investigation findings from the Gary Webb article. That description is accurate. None of the three investigations found evidence of any conspiracy by the CIA or its employees to smuggle cocaine. Some have disagreed with this, but this is what the investigations concluded. It is not reasonable to mention the investigations in the lead, and omit their findings. The statement should be included.

As for the first point, the statement that the CIA had connections to drug traffickers as part of their support of the Contras in Nicaragua is not sourced or substantiated in the article. Webb believed this was true, but an npov discussion of Webb's claims would have trouble fitting in the lead and the bald statement that this was a fact is POV+.

Outside of Webb's claims, the rest of the article is basically a detailed summary of the Barger/Parry article from 1985 and a poor summary of the Kerry Committee report. The Barger/Parry summary does not even mention the CIA, and the CIA is mentioned in the Kerry summary only to report that Dewey Clarridge told the Committee that the agency knew associates of Eden Pastora were involved in cocaine smuggling. What does this prove about CIA involvement with cocaine smuggling? Why doesn't Pastora get mentioned again in the article? In fact, Webb attempts to exonerate Pastora of involvement with cocaine smuggling. Writing like this needs a strong dose of context; probably the best solution is simply to merge it with the article on Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. Rgr09 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I find the current wording acceptable, but I attempted to improve it in several ways:
 * Re: "Webb's series led to three federal investigations, none of which found evidence of any conspiracy by the CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States." The quote, and the article in general, seem to be written to defend the charge that the CIA actively conspired to import drugs. I think the investigations agree that this is false. However, they do seem to point toward CIA relationships with people who were involved in drug trafficking, and perhaps even protection of drug traffickers from other law enforcement agencies. I think this article should focus on describing and characterizing these connections, rather than defending against a particular claim. Concluding the lead with this phrase alone seems to make it seem there was no CIA connection at all, which doesn't strike me as an accurate summary of the sources.
 * Re: "CIA involvement in trafficking is usually alleged to be connected to the Contra war in Nicaragua during the Reagan Administration, which acknowledged in 1986 that funds from cocaine smuggling had helped fund the Contra rebels, but stated that the smuggling was not authorized by the US government or resistance leaders." This doesn't say that the US government was actively supporting the Contras, forcing the reader to makes connections themselves.
 * I wish the article would state plainly: The CIA supported Contras. Contras were trafficking drugs. After that it seems there may have been (or were? you decide.) some conflicts of interest and it gets fuzzy, but this seems to me to be the essential situation. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your points, and, as I am not the editor who is needed, I join you in encouraging a knowledgeable editor(s) to take on the task you propose.--71.36.99.131 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rgr09. There is a big difference between A) being involved in drug trafficking and B) having some sort of connection to drug traffickers. I think a lot of conspiracy believers want to run with B and make it equivalent to A. The title of this article distinctly gives the impression that the CIA were the equivalent of coke dealers. As Rgr09 has indicated, there is a lot of context for these allegations going back to at least the allegations that the CIA was involved with opium smuggling in SE Asia in the late 1960s. I, too, favor some sort of merge if only to control the amount of fringe material that spreads through various related articles.. Some suggestions for merge and/or rename: Allegations of CIA drug trafficking, Allegations of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, Allegations of United States government involvement in drug trafficking, and Allegations of United States government complicity in drug trafficking. - Location (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your distinction between A and B, but I would rather see this article move towards being descriptive of the historical situation rather than descriptive of accusations. Specifically, I would prefer to rename to CIA relationships with Contra cocaine smugglers. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the historical situation is that Webb and others made much ado about CIA relationships with drug traffickers that just didn't exist. The reason that there were three major investigations and so much written in the media is because there were accusations of relationships. The CIA relationship with the Contras should be outlined in CIA activities in Nicaragua, but even that is filling with the drug stuff. -Location (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a fair reading of the sources to say that "relationships with drug traffickers... just didn't exist". The Kerry Committee concluded the US state department was making payments to known drug traffickers. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are equivocating between the State Department and the CIA. The types of relationships I was referring to (when I wrote "much ado about CIA relationships with drug traffickers that just didn't exist") were those suggesting that the CIA helped smuggled drugs into the United States in order to fund the Vietnam War or the Contras war. What kind of relationships were you talking about? -Location (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right about my too casually equating the State Department and the CIA. I'm talking about the relationships Hitz mentioned "The CIA did not, in an expeditious or consistent fashion, cut off relationships with individuals supporting the Contra program who were alleged to have engaged in drug trafficking activity." As I read it, U.S. government agencies paid drug traffickers to assist in operations not involving drugs, sometimes knowing they were involved in drug trafficking (Kerry Cmte.; Hitz) and even that, at least occasionally, the CIA protected drug smugglers from investigation, prosecution, and punishment (DOJ, 1998; CIA report). Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To clarify what I proposed (above), I would gladly remove almost all of the discussion of Gary Webb from this article, if there is agreement from other editors, since it is already covered in another article and is factually dubious. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

MacMichael quote
I reverted 's removal of the quote by David MacMichael. I think it is a very readable and accurate summary of the situation, essentially echoing the Kerry Committee's conclusion that there was "Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations through business relationships with Contra organizations". Furthermore, and its removal moves the article away from being descriptive of US government relationships with drug smugglers, which I have advocated for in. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have to decide whether it's an accurate summary of the situation, just whether MacMichael is worth quoting, and whether the quote is relevant to the article. MacMichael is not worth quoting on all subjects, but in this case I think he is, and the quote is quite relevant. However, it needs context, and an explanation of what it is doing in the article. I don't think it should just be left floating on the right side of the article. I believe the quote is essentially MacMichael's take on the Kerry report. If so, I suggest putting it in the section on the Kerry Committee report, since that is what it is about, but I'll wait to see other opinions. Also, calling MacMichael an 'agent' is wrong; according to the David MacMichael article in 1989 he was a 'former CIA analyst'. Rgr09 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping and feedback. I won't argue that the quote is totally irrelevant to the subject, however, there are a few issues with it that I find problematic.
 * Regarding the Kerry Committee's finding that Contra drug links included "Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations through business relationships with Contra organizations."(p.36) Page 39 to 40 discusses infrastructure and it does not indicate that it was put in place by the United States government or the CIA. Page 42 discusses pilots and it does not indicate that they had anything to do with the United States government or the CIA. Page 42 to 49 discusses "US Government Funds and Companies with Drug Connections and starts off: "The State Department Selected four companies owned and operated by narcotics traffickers to supply humanitarian aid to the Contras." Now this doesn't reflect well on the State Department but it doesn't state the CIA made this decision. In this context, MacMichael's quote does not appear to be factually accurate... at least about "CIA involvement"... which is the subject of this article.
 * Also, MacMichael's involvement with the Christic Institute - granted he appears to have wanted nothing to do with the Secret Team theory - whose frivolous lawsuit was dismissed makes him a biased source. I don't think we should bury the official findings in the article while highlighting the opinion of a biased source. NPOV applies.
 * Rgr09 has a greater understanding of the Kerry report than I do, so I'll defer to his opinions on this. I will acknowledge that it's quite possible I've missed something here. -Location (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * All good points; I have moved the quote into the Kerry section as you suggested. Thanks for your careful reading of the sources; I recognize that his statements are not entirely justified by the other sources. However, I also agree with  that MacMichael is worth quoting as a noteworthy commentator on the US intelligence community in the early 1980s (and only the early 1980s). Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional Sources

 * https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/the-dark-alliance-declassified/

Quote from the Kerry report
The article quotes the Kerry report as follows: Regarding CIA knowledge of these facts, the report said: "the CIA's Chief of the Central American Task Force went on to say: We knew that everybody around Pastora was involved in cocaine ... His staff and friends (redacted) they were drug smugglers or involved in drug smuggling." This quote is from the top of p. 38 of the report. However, the article text citing the quote is wrong when it says "Regarding CIA knowledge of these facts the report said..." "These facts" refers to a series of claims in the article just above the quote. The quote, however, had nothing to do with this list. Out of context quotes such as this need fixing. The Kerry report itself has numerous similar problems, and because of this, the Report itself can be difficult to understand without looking back at original sources. For the time being, I have removed the report quote. Putting it back in requires stating the context of the quote. The context in which it appears is criticism of law enforcement and intelligence agencies' slow and/or inadequate response to allegations of contra drug smuggling. In the twisted context of the quote, the quote can easily be taken to mean that that the CIA is acknowledging its own failure to do anything about contra drug smuggling, for what sinister purposes the reader is left to infer on his or her own. In fact, the speaker in this quote, Alan Fiers, is defending the CIA response to claims of drug smuggling in Pastora's forces, which he says included reporting its information about the smuggling to the Justice Department and the Senate and House Intelligence committees, and dropping all support of Pastora, both military and humanitarian. Rgr09 (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Altered Testimony of the CIA Inspector General Section
I altered the "Testimony of the CIA Inspector General" section for a variety of reasons. First off, the section was not clear (before) on the fact that narcotics violations were omitted from the list of crimes agents were required to report. Before it read like the agreement specifically said it was ok for agents to look the other way......that's not exactly the case. Secondly, I changed the line Only after Congressional funds were restored in 1986 was the agreement modified to require the CIA to stop paying agents who it believed were involved in the drug trade. to just After Congressional funds were restored in 1986...... The clear implication here (by Cockburn) is that the money was no longer needed so that's why the agreement changed. There is no proof of that and (by the way) a more RS than Cockburn would be nice here since it is clear he has a axe to grind here. And finally, I omitted mentioning the fact Smith was Reagan's attorney general. There is no need for that as it is unclear what role (if any) Reagan himself played in these discussions between the Justice Department and the CIA.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wound up changing the After Congressional funds were restored in 1986..... line. To just In 1986,..... We need a more RS saying point-blank the agreement was altered for this reason.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the sources cited in this section says this: According to Hitz, this policy was modified in 1986 when the agency was prohibited from paying U.S. dollars to any individual or company found to be involved in drug dealing. Note it says nothing about how this related to Congressional funding (for the Contras). The Only after Congressional funds were restored in 1986... seems to be taken directly from Cockburn's book 'Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press'.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Confused paragraph
The lead previously contained the following paragraph:
 * Allegations of CIA drug trafficking are often connected to the war in Nicaragua and the Iran–Contra affair during the Reagan Administration. In 1986 a Contras' spokesman acknowledged that funds from sales of cocaine smuggled into the US had helped fund the Contra rebels, but said that the smuggling was not authorized by the US government or resistance leaders.

I have deleted this paragraph. First, it gives an incorrect source. A Contras spokesman did not say this. The reference is to an AP story, which reports on an executive branch statement provided to Texas Rep. Charles Stenholm, who had asked for comments on an earlier AP story. Second, the content of the paragraph is also incorrect. The executive branch statement nowhere says that "funds from sales of cocaine smuggled into the US" helped fund the Contras. The AP story does not say this either. This is instead a variant of the "guns down, drugs up" conspiracy theory pushed primarily by the Christic Institute. Very unacceptable to attribute this to the Contras, the Reagan administration, or AP! Third, an accurate description of the AP story and the executive branch statement is already given later in the article in the "FBI probe" section.

For reference, the complete executive branch statement is available in the appendix of the Kerry report (here). It is discussed in the K. report on page 37. Rgr09 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

claim/find/conclude
The article originally said:
 * Webb's series led to three federal investigations, none of which found evidence of any conspiracy by the CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States.

This was changed to:
 * Webb's series led to three federal investigations, all of which claimed to have found evidence of any conspiracy by the CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States.

The reason given in the edit summary is 'NPOV'. This revision is missing the negative, and was corrected to
 * Webb's series led to three federal investigations, all of which claimed to have found no evidence of any conspiracy by the CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States.

The wording here has been discussed before (see Lead changes above). I disagree with the use of the word 'claim' in the current version, which seems to express the suspicion that the investigations actually found evidence but suppressed it. If this is truly the meaning intended, a reliable source for that suspicion is needed.

If the point of the changes is to say that the conclusions of the investigations were mere assertions, put forward against doubt or question, I feel that is actually more NPOV than the original. The formal conclusion of the investigations, which were lengthy and detailed, was no conspiracy. One may of course doubt the conclusion of the investigations was correct. If this is to be discussed in the article, please add a reliable source for the doubt. To reduce any ambiguity, I revised one more time, changing the word "found" to "concluded". Whoops, I add my sig. Thanks for the reminder. Rgr09 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; we should not use loaded language to add unsourced doubt to statements per WP:CLAIM.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, too. ( Don't forget to sign.) - Location (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed Rgr09.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

change name to include "conspiracy theory"
This seems to be the very definition of a conspiracy theory—"an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable"—so why isn't it explicitly called one? For example, the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article includes that descriptor in its title. There's a real problem in that the current name of this article falsely suggests that the CIA was involved in Contra cocaine trafficking—when the article is clear there's no evidence they were. To put it another way: imagine an article titled "CIA assassination of JFK". Numerous RS from mainstream news to scholarship have defined this as the conspiracy theory that it obviously is—and so it makes sense to me that we do the same here. I see that and others have discussed this before, and would like to move forward with the name change. Thanks, and welcome any thoughts! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't see your earlier ping. The idea that the CIA was working with (i.e. conspiring with) Contra leaders, members, or supporters to raise funds via cocaine trafficking is indeed a conspiracy theory. For that, CIA-Contra cocaine trafficking conspiracy theory would be a more suitable title. Another option that conspiracists might find less objectionable is Allegations of CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking. The extent of the CIA's "involvement" is that it had received allegations that several dozen Contra-related individuals and one Contra organization were involved in drug trafficking, and that they acted inconsistently in handling that information and passing it along to other US Government entities. Hitz makes it clear that this inconsistency was not due to collusion with the Contras (or the "turning a blind eye" theory), but rather shortcomings in laws, policies, and guidelines detailing what CIA personnel were required to do with the allegations and information they received. A third options would be CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy as titled by the DOJ. All three options are more suitable than the current title. - Location (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion of no involvement
A editor recently raised the issue of saying the 3 Federal probes into this cleared the agency. I plan to add a number of secondary RS sources to affirm that. (Right now it's a little PRIMARY.) Certainly some (including people like Gary Webb, Maxine Waters, etc) questioned that....and we can expand the discussion on that.....but to say the majority of RS characterized this as anything but clearing them isn't accurate.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Misleading Opening
MrObjectivity2 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)I've made a couple edits over the past 24 hours to make the opening more accurate but, despite being sourced, they have been reversed, I think unfairly. I am concerned that the article as currently written, gives readers the impression that the CIA was cleared of any involvement in the narcotics trade. This is untrue. As my citations from the NY Times and CNN stated, the CIA's own internal report found that agency assets were in fact involved in the drug trade. Higher-ups not only knew about this, but dissuaded other federal agencies, specifically the DEA, from investigating the Contras. To take those established facts and stretch them into "there was no evidence of conspiracy by the CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States" is an act of linguistic gymnastics.

But even that impressively precise wording is inaccurate. By the definition of John Deutch, who was Director of the CIA when their internal report was commissioned, a CIA asset is, and should be considered, a part of the CIA. Therefore, if CIA assets are bringing drugs into the United States and the CIA bureaucracy knows about this and allows it, then yes, the CIA is bringing drugs into the United States. Trying to have it both ways on this question confuses the reader and contributes to the "patchwork" article quality that others have noted.


 * The LEAD and (to some degree the main body) focus on the results of the three Federal investigations into this. None of them conclude the CIA brought drugs into the country. This is not just how the reports characterizes it....it is also what a number of RS says as well. (As cited in the article.) The problem with your edit (in the LEAD) is: it completely omits the fact that the three Federal investigations cleared the CIA of any involvement in the drug trade (which doesn't reflect the main body). The LEAD could probably be altered to a degree to reflect the fact that some CIA assets got mixed up in the trade....but we cannot ignore the fact that RS characterized the results of these investigations as clearing the agency.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * MrObjectivity2 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Again, CIA assets are considered part of the CIA. So you can't say that the internal report both found that the CIA was "cleared of any involvement in the drug trade" AND that "CIA assets got mixed up in the trade." It's fair enough that the first two (highly politicized) reports had that conclusion more or less, but the third investigation certainly did not. Lumping them all together as exculpatory is just dishonest. The most up to date reliable sources reflect the final report, which has the most up to date information and found CIA involvement in the drug trade.
 * You are taking a Deutch quote (from what source I am not sure, the Town Hall meeting?) and saying this proves a number of secondary RS characterizations of the Federal investigations are wrong. That's OR. To omit all you tried to omit from the LEAD, you'd need a RS characterization of the reports that way.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MrObjectivity2 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC) The RS you're referring to were written about the first two investigations, which happened before the third one. As I've reiterated, and you don't seem to want to accept, the third report had a different conclusion, and different RS characterizations that I've cited. If you really feel that it's important for readers to know that the first two reports happened, (despite them being later debunked) then let's leave that part up. But we owe it to readers to have a fair characterization of the third and final report, which your edit obfuscates.
 * Are you referring to this ? That's not the "third report". (Which would be the House report.) This also doesn't frame things the way you say. It opens with "The CIA overlooked or ignored reports that the Nicaragua Contra rebels financed their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas through the sale of drugs in the United States, according to an internal CIA report." That's hardly the same thing as the CIA itself moving drugs. As far as the CIA trying to get the DEA off the back of it's assets it says this: In one instance, the CIA discouraged the DEA from examining Oliver North's efforts to evade legal restrictions on Contra aid through a secret supply operation in El Salvador, according to the report. I would think that would be self explanatory. (I.e. the DEA would find out he was breaking the Boland amendment.) In any case, none of these sources say the CIA itself was mixed up in drug smuggling. You are connecting the dots from what John Deutch said to a asset being the equivalent of a employee. Again, that's OR. You need a RS that puts it that way.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * MrObjectivity2 (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)I appreciate you finally getting around to reading the RS you've been dismissing so far. As you can see in the NY Times article I cited entitled "C.I.A. Says It Used Nicaraguan Rebels Accused of Drug Tie" : "The new study has found that the agency's decision to keep those paid agents, or to continue dealing with them in some less formal relationship, was made by top officials at headquarters in Langley, Va., in the midst of the war waged by the C.I.A.-backed contras against Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista Government." That's completely consistent with what I wrote, that CIA assets were running drugs and the agency tolerated it. As for Deutch's definition of "asset", I never put that in the article. I provided it here in the talk page for context. But just so we have this straight, would a transcript be considered OR too? Does citing an interview cease to be OR if it's in print? Even so, I think his definition is a pretty common sense one that most readers would agree with. I agree with that quote being "self-explanatory." What kind of Salvadoran "secret supply operation" do you think Oliver North would dissuade the DEA from investigating?? Boland only banned government aid, so anything private would be above board. Unless of course it's illegal. Need I remind you what DEA stands for?
 * The problem with your first edits is you removed the findings as characterized by RS. Even this CNN article doesn't characterize CIA involvement as tantamount to the agency moving drugs. Just their assets. Like I said before, I have no issue with tweaking the LEAD to reflect that the CIA was looking the other way when this was going on. The Boland amendment banned government aid. This includes people acting as government agents....like North. Funneling supplies (obtained with funds through illegal arms sales to Iran) to the Contras via the supply networks mentioned would have exposed the whole thing. It wound up getting exposed anyway (on the Nicaraguan side of things) with another supply plane (i.e. Corporate Air Services HPF821) being shot down over Nicaragua. (Which had no drugs on board, just weapons.) So needless to say, you wouldn't want the DEA snooping around at these airports where these flights originated....not necessarily because of drugs.....but because the whole Iran-Contra operation would get exposed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to tweak the intro again. One issue is-as it stands now- there is the implication there was more public pressure to put out Volume II of the Hitz report than any of the other reports. This is not indicated by any RS. (Nor the sources cited.) Also the whole "was not only aware" isn't neutral language. (Sort of righteous indignation tone with that.) And finally none of the reports (including Volume II of the Hitz report) say anything of a conspiracy by the CIA or it's employees to bring drugs into the USA. Just assets. Also, the citations need to be tweaked a bit as they are not formatted correctly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also noted the fact it was "in some cases" that the CIA dissuaded the DEA from looking into this. Clearly the CIA was alerting the DEA about this (in some instances). For example, in the DOJ report it states: "We reviewed formal and informal transmission of intelligence information from the CIA to the DEA concerning allegations of drug trafficking by the Contras and DEA's response to this information....We discuss information about certain cases of suspected trafficking by Contra supporters that was provided by the CIA to DEA and the response of DEA to that information."Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead as it stands now remains problematic. First, the Risen article cited was written in July 1998, prior to the release of the unclassified version of the Hitz report (part II). The unclassified version was released in October 1998. It would be much preferable to cite the actual report, rather than this earlier, second hand reporting.
 * Citing the report would avoid the basic error made in the lead, an error frequently repeated in Wikipedia. The report did not set out to determine whether assets were actually trafficking narcotics or for what reasons. Instead, it attempted to determine what information the CIA had received that Contras were involved in narcotics, and what CIA had done with the information, either notifying other agencies or governments, dismissing Contras hired or paid by the CIA, etc.
 * Risen gets this right (evidence that his sources gave him a correct summary of Hitz's findings), writing that the report "criticizes agency officials' actions at the time for the inconsistent and sometimes sloppy manner in which they investigated -- or chose not to investigate -- the allegations, which were never substantiated by the agency."
 * Nowhere does Risen use the words "aware" or "asset" or "fund" in the article. In short, Risen's article does not support the lead summary. Rgr09 (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Rgr09. How would you word it (given what you have said)? The issues raised above have come up before....and perhaps we can settle on something that will capture everyone's concerns.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My issue with the lede's last two sentences is 1) there is a bit of WP:SYNTH from the sentence cited to Risen to the sentence cited to Aiken, and 2) it is implied that there was some centralized, nefarious intent by the CIA. In Risen, the "CIA assets" are "two dozen Nicaraguan rebels and their supporters" without further specification. In Aiken, they are ARDEN and Alan Hyde. I've re-read the sections about ARDEN and Hyde. The CIA didn't follow-up on the ARDEN allegations because they "stemmed from a single source" and HQ "issued a cable indicating that the source was thought to be untrustworthy and a possible agent of the Government of Nicaragua". The section on Hyde is quite lengthy, but it seems to indicate that the CIA was aware of boasts and allegations of trafficking, but no firm proof (despite how Aiken summarized a USDAO report). All of this certainly helps one to understand Hitz's view that the CIA was sloppy and that officers received mixed messaging on how to deal with various allegations. - Location (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The slight synthesis can be easily resolved by removing the word “this” from the second sentence: “However, in the CIA report, it was also found that CIA assets had been trafficking narcotics to fund the Contra rebels. The agency was aware of drug trafficking, and (in some cases) dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved”.

The two sentences are a reasonable summary of the two sources. Various quotes from the report indicate that the CIA’s actions evinced deliberate intent. Prior to the report the CIA claimed it had little information about the Contras drug running activities. The CIA dissuaded other agencies from investigating the Contra groups and their contractors. The CIA chose not to conduct proper investigations when allegations became known. Top officials in the CIA made decisions to continue dealing with agents who were suspected of drug dealing. Here are some quotes from the two sources which substantiate the two sentences we currently include in the article:

"it was also found that CIA assets had been trafficking narcotics to fund the Contra rebels" and "The agency was aware of drug trafficking":

-- The Central Intelligence Agency continued to work with about two dozen Nicaraguan rebels and their supporters during the 1980's despite allegations that they were trafficking in drugs.

-- the C.I.A. received allegations of drug involvement against about 50 contras or supporters

-- drug allegations had been made against one contra organization, a group known as 15th of September.

-- The new study has found that the agency's decision … was made by top officials at headquarters in Langley.

-- In all, the C.I.A. received allegations of drug involvement against about 50 contras or supporters during the war against the Sandinistas. It could not be determined from the C.I.A.'s records how many of the 50 cases were fully investigated. But the agency continued to work with about two dozen of the 50 contras … the agency was unable to either prove or disprove the charges, or did not investigate them adequately.

-- The CIA overlooked or ignored reports that the Nicaragua Contra rebels financed their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas through the sale of drugs in the United States

-- One cable sent to the CIA from a field office described a "trial run" of a drug route from Honduras to Miami in July 1981 to benefit the Nicaraguan Revolutionary Democratic Alliance (ADREN). An earlier cable cited in the report said the rebel group felt it was being "forced to stoop to criminal activities in order to feed and clothe their cadre."

-- The report also cited the use of a Honduran businessman, Alan Hyde, for logistical support to the Contras, despite Hyde's identification in a 1984 U.S. Defense Department report as "a businessman making much money dealing in 'white gold,' i.e., cocaine."

"(in some cases) dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved”.

-- the CIA dissuaded other federal agencies, notably the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), from probing the activities of Contra groups and their contractors. In one instance, the CIA discouraged the DEA from examining Oliver North's efforts to evade legal restrictions on Contra aid through a secret supply operation in El Salvador.

Burrobert (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok so is everyone ok with changing the end of the LEAD to say this:


 * However, in the CIA report, it was also found that CIA assets had been trafficking narcotics to fund the Contra rebels. The agency was aware of drug trafficking, and (in some cases) dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That and the aforementioned two sentences together are not an accurate summary of what the sources detail. Heavily paraphrased/copied from Pincus, it would be much more accurate to state something like: "The CIA's OIG report found that the CIA was aware of hundreds allegations of drug trafficking by contra officials, their contractors, and individual supporters, but that they did little or nothing to respond to them (or follow-up or corroborate them)." I don't have a major problem stating, "The report details cases where the CIA dissuaded other federal agencies, notably the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), from probing the activities of Contra groups and their contractors". What would be best is to wrap those points up with sources that mentions why the CIA acted (or didn't act) that way. Hitz stated to Frontline: "What we did find was a reaction to concerns about drug trafficking that relate to the sure knowledge that if these allegations were proven, it would destroy the whole purpose of the Contra endeavor. We saw plenty of awareness of that." - Location (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As an aside regarding Alan Hyde, Aiken wrote:
 * The report also cited the use of a Honduran businessman, Alan Hyde, for logistical support to the Contras, despite Hyde's identification in a 1984 U.S. Defense Department report as "a businessman making much money dealing in 'white gold,' i.e., cocaine.
 * The relevant section in the CIA OIG report (see 914) begins:
 * Allegations Of Drug Trafficking. A September 1984 report from the U.S. Defense Attaché Office (USDAO) in Tegucigalpa stated that a "Mr. Hyde," who "purportedly owns some 15 boats and a fish processing plant in French Harbor [Roatan]," said that "he is making much money dealing in 'white gold,' i.e., cocaine." A USDAO comment in the report stated that the description "fits that of Alan Hyde of Mariscos Hybur S.A." A February 27, 1985 Headquarters cable summarized traces received concerning possible maritime narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean and cited the September 1984 USDAO report that "Hyde claims to be making a lot of money selling cocaine.
 * In other words, the USDAO report identified Hyde as someone who claimed he was a businessman dealing in cocaine, not someone who was known to be dealing in cocaine as Aiken wrote. -Location (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A reasonable summary should include the following:
 * -- CIA assets were suspected of trafficking narcotics to fund the Contra rebels.
 * -- The CIA chose not to conduct proper investigations when allegations became known.
 * -- The CIA continued to work with about two dozen contras after allegations of drug running became known to it
 * -- Top officials in the CIA made decisions to continue dealing with agents who were suspected of drug dealing.
 * -- Prior to the report the CIA claimed it had little information about the Contras drug running activities.
 * -- The CIA dissuaded other agencies from investigating the Contra groups and their contractors.
 * Burrobert (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One addition would be to briefly explain that the reason for the CIA’s actions or inactions was partially to protect sensitive operations in backing the Contras and not “anything as spectacular as a systematic effort by the CIA to protect the drug trafficking activities of the Contras” (USDOJ/OIG Special Report). -Location (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed Location.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding footnote for Pincus. Risen, Aiken, and Pincus articles all purport to summarize the IG report "The Contra Story", but have issues. Risen's article was written in July 1998, before the unclassified version of "Contra Story" was released. Risen relied on his sources in the CIA for his summary of the report content, rather than actually reading it. Pincus and Aiken do not suffer from this disadvantage. Unfortunately, "Contra Story" does not have an executive summary highlighting the report's main findings. Hitz later wrote a journal article which is a passable substitute. I feel this is a much better source for a summary of the report than the three articles. Unfortunately, it is not on line. I have a xerox copy. I will add a few comments on specific concerns I have over the next day or two. Rgr09 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction, "Contra Story" does have an executive summary, I will list the issues with summary vs articles in a section below. Note also that the versions of "Contra story" linked to in the article have removed the section on Alan Hyde (para 913-961). The section is still available in the FAS.org version of the report which Location linked to above. Rgr09 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The article by Hitz, who was the CIA inspector-general supervising the report, mentions half of the points I listed above, namely:
 * -- CIA assets were suspected of trafficking narcotics to fund the Contra rebels.
 * -- The CIA chose not to conduct proper investigations when allegations became known.
 * -- The CIA continued to work with about two dozen contras after allegations of drug running became known to it

Regarding the other points:
 * -- "Top officials in the CIA made decisions to continue dealing with agents who were suspected of drug dealing". This comes from Risen's article. It is not mentioned specifically by Hitz, though Hitz does list action taken by the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO) which would have resulted in CIA operatives continuing to work with suspected drug runners. If Risen was using his CIA sources for this statement, then it could still be used and attributed to Risen. As his article was written before the second report was released, he may have been referring to a version of the report which was amended prior to release.
 * -- "Prior to the report the CIA claimed it had little information about the Contras drug running activities". This is in the CNN article and is outside of the report. We can use the CNN article as a source for this statement.
 * -- "The CIA dissuaded other agencies from investigating the Contra groups and their contractors". This is in the CNN article. It is not mentioned specifically by Hitz. However, Hitz does not mention CNN's statement about Oliver North, so it seems Hitz' summary is not all-embracing.

Has anyone mentioned that using an internal CIA report and a summary provided by the supervising CIA inspector-general, as a source for allegations about the CIA should be treated with some caution? Burrobert (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Two comments on your response above. First, you are in error in describing the CIA OIG reports as "internal CIA reports." Since 1990, the CIA IG, like the the other IGs created in 1978, has been an independent statutory position and the OIG an independent government entity. The CIA IG is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The IG is not an employee of the CIA, though many of the IGs have previously worked in the CIA, and the IG is not a subordinate of the DCIA. The reports now produced by the OIG are not CIA documents, though the underlining documentation certainly is.
 * The two IG reports discussed in this article, "The California Story" and "The Contra Story" were released by the OIG in two versions, classified and unclassified. The unclassified versions were very much intended for public consumption as a result of the strong controversy generated by the Dark Alliance newspaper series, just as the DOJ Inspector General's report on the Dark Alliance was intended for public reading. The DOJ report was technically only released in one version, but like the CIA report, there was material redacted from it, such as the names of certain witnesses.
 * I have read comments like yours before, so yes, other people have raised the issue of using these reports, suggesting that they are somehow contaminated or illegitimate and should be suppressed from articles dealing with the Dark Alliance allegations. I in no way agree with this. The reports are official government responses to the serious allegations raised by the Dark Alliance series, compiled by professional inspectors and investigators at substantial cost and time. They are essential reading for anyone interested in this subject, and key components for any worthwhile article on the subject. Critical RS commentary on these reports is of course a reasonable component of the article as well.
 * Second, the Pincus, Risen, and Aiken articles are impossible to introduce in the article without presenting the IG report. You seem to want to treat these articles as independent of the report when virtually all of the information in them comes directly from the report or indirectly from descriptions of the report. I don't think this is a reasonable way to present the articles or the report. I will return in a couple of days to your other comments above. Rgr09 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand the concern about PRIMARY. But quite frankly a number of RS (papers like the NY Times and so on) characterized these reports similarly. We cite several in the article....and Nick Schou also notes this fact in his book Kill The Messenger. (See p.167-168, 184, etc.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * —- The description "internal CIA report" comes from the Risen and CNN articles which say "The new report is the long-delayed second volume of the C.I.A.’s internal investigation " and "The CIA overlooked or ignored reports that the Nicaragua Contra rebels financed their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas through the sale of drugs in the United States, according to an internal CIA report ". Whether "internal" is appropriate or not, the report does seem to have close connections to the CIA and was supervised by Hitz, who was the CIA inspector-general.
 * —- By the phrase "some caution", I was not suggesting it "should be suppressed". Attribution of any statements that come from the report would be sufficient. Providing readers with information about the origin of the report and who was responsible for producing it would also be useful. This may be what you were referring to in the statement "Second, the Pincus, Risen, and Aiken articles are impossible to introduce in the article without presenting the IG report". In addition, the report is a Primary document so any direct use needs to conform to the relevant policy for Primary documents.
 * Burrobert (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The CIA, Contras, Gangs, and Crack
The CIA, Contras, Gangs, and Crack https://ips-dc.org/the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack/ Kill the Messenger (2014 film) scenes:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZbXA4lyCtqptOtzdt_Y8aA9DCN6QbGFu

Short description
Hello Please read Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Reverting without a reason is inappropriate. My edit to follow WP:SDSHORT does have consensus across Wikipedia. Reverting to a short description which greatly exceeds 40 chars without stating a reason – to continue a conflict from other articles – is inappropriate. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was "no consensus" in my edit summary. I just said you "Need to get consensus" for such a change in long-standing content.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)