Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA drug trafficking


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Clean, fix Fringe, rename. Consensus is to 1) cleanup, 2) deal with concerns about FRINGE, and 3) rename to NPOV title. I'll fix the third after closure ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

CIA drug trafficking

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a POV fork of CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities. The title itself (CIA drug trafficking) is highly POV since it implies that the CIA actually smuggled drugs itself, while the article itself discusses incidents where the CIA may have bungled certain operations, or trained people who later went on to smuggle drugs. The sourcing is atrocious - there are a number of conspiracy theory books being used here that allege things that are patently ridiculous (and that are described as being patently ridiculous by reliable sources such as the Washington Post). The article is using a source that claims that Bill Clinton teamed up with Oliver North and the Bush family to smuggle drugs into Arkansas! GabrielF (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please retract the phrase "WP:POV FORK" which has a specific and actionable meaning which is quite impossible, as the CIA drug trafficking article was created in March 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_drug_trafficking&oldid=44614781 and the transnational article as a sort of Disambiguation or list page on Christmas Eve, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_transnational_anti-crime_and_anti-drug_activities&oldid=179964796
 * Anarchangel (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The best outcome would be a balanced merge, since one piece is largely pro-CIA fluff and the other is an anti-CIA screed. They are both huge pieces, however, so it may well be that leaving bad enough alone is the way to play it, with a renaming of this to Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. Some specific charges in this matter (although not necessarily the whole laundry list here) are not as ridiculous and "fringe" as the nominator makes them out to be, although there's no disputing that some dispassionate NPOV editing needs to be done to both pieces. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A case can be made that official anti-drug operations and various other operations aiding-and-abetting (at a minimum) the drug trade over the years are separable historical topics, so I'm liking the idea of a merge less and less. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The CIA and transnational crime article covers much of what is in the CIA drug smuggling article: the Gary Ross allegations of links to the Contras and the Ramon Guillen Davila indictment. This material is also covered in CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US. The remaining sections, particularly Mena Arkansas, are really terrible. The books cited are not reliable sources: "The Fraud of the Fraud" is self-published (CreateSpace), "The New Oceania: An Untold Story of the Growing Misuse of U.s. Power Against Its People" is published by Trafford Publishing, which is also print on demand. The article also uses a book called "You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths". Where reliable sources such as the Washington Post are used, what these sources actually say, that the Mena allegations are a fringe theory with no validity, is ignored. If you removed the material that is duplicative or poorly sourced there would be little of value left. I'm also not convinced that the CIA and transnational crime article is "pro-CIA fluff" since I just removed a sentence stating that the CIA's involvement in anti-drug activities is ironic due to allegations of the CIA dealing drugs. GabrielF (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG1Id2qpSOE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT4XA18cj3I&feature=related there are proof that the cia trafficked coke, thats why GARY WEBB "KILLED HIMSELF" WITH TWO BULLETS TO THE HEAD.DONT DELETE THIS PAGE IN HIS HONOR JUST MODIFY IT CAREFULLY.Vjiced (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Allegations of CIA drug trafficking, per Carrite, and clean up as necessary. Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Modify it but dont change the name or merge it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_UbAmRGSYwÀ
 * WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment there may be reasonable grounds for believing that the CIA has allowed smuggling of drugs into the U.S. in order not to 'blow' covert information-gathering operations. I heard this off one of my political science professors years and years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Edison above. Unless someone can come up with a court decision or something similarly authoritative proving that the CIA was running drugs, it's an allegation. Given the number of people who believe that everything on the web is true, we should be careful how we name things. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Robert Bonner ex head of the DEA admitted it ,WHAT OTHER PROOF DO YOU WANT ? LOOK AT IRAN CONTRA and hey think one second there is more money made with drugs than the oil and automobile industries together each year, you are a fool if you believe that governments wont gets theirs hands dirty,Vjiced (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What other proof do we want? How about WP:RS to establish WP:N? And what policy-based reason does the rest of your comments establish for the retention of the article? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.