This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rja13ww33 (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 17 January 2015 (→RfC: Was Webb Vindicated? Is this article specific enough?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:34, 17 January 2015 by Rja13ww33 (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Was Webb Vindicated? Is this article specific enough?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gary Webb article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vindicated?
I take issue with this article. It claims in the introduction (and its overall feel is) that Webb was somehow vindicated. In actuality, a great deal of his more significant claims have (to date) NOT been verified. He claimed (for example) that Ross and his cohorts "opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles" he also claimed this same group "helped spark a crack explosion in urban America". That is baseless. And speaking of that, one of the very reports cited here says exactly that. I am speaking of the July 1998 Justice Department article referenced here. According to this article, the report is a vindication of Webb, saying that the "report corroborated Webb's investigation into Norwin Meneses". But not only did the Justice Department report dispute these claims (saying they were unable to substantiate the claim that he was protected), it also disputed Webb's claims of the origins of the crack epidemic (both in Los Angeles and nationwide). It also said that Meneses's "drug dealing was not motivated by any desire to aid the Contra cause, but instead was for his personal profit". It also questioned the numbers Webb gave as far as their contributions to the Contra cause. I'm not sure how to resolve this but I think this article needs a re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rja13ww33 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- @LamontCranston: @Viriditas: @Commodore Sloat: @TDC: - To those I pinged, would you mind taking a look at this editor's comments? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that many newspapers who posted criticisms of Webb stated that his series stated certain things, but Webb's supporters stated that the critical newspapers were putting words in his mouth. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's true that a lot of people mischaracterized what Webb stated. But the quotes I gave (i.e. Ross & co. "opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles" and this "helped spark a crack explosion in urban America") came directly from the first installment of Dark Alliance itself. These are the claims that sparked so much attention for the series in the first place. Furthermore Webb also claimed that Ross was the "Johnny Appleseed of crack" in California (a notion which the DOJ investigation undermines).Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please stick to the sources. Originally, the reliable secondary sources in this article said he was vindicated. You're criticizing that based on your reading of the primary source material. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rja13ww33, you need to find a secondary source which explicitly says something along the lines of: "Webb said A, the USDOJ said B, so therefore..." - Misplaced Pages:Original research does not allow an editor to say "Even though the Los Angeles Times/whoever had accused him and now said he was vindicated, I read the USDOJ report so I will say he's wrong" WhisperToMe (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I’m relatively new at this so I hope you will pardon the fact I am somewhat dismayed that I cannot cite primary resources that prove my assertion (I’m almost certain I’ve seen books cited as references on here). But if you want a secondary source that also question the notion that Webb was vindicated (and also characterized the Hitz report far differently than this article does), see below.
- Delaval, Craig. “Cocaine, Conspiracy Theories & the C.I.A. in Central America”
- “Still, the fantastic story of the CIA injecting crack into ghettos had taken hold. In response to the public outcry following Webb's allegations--which were ultimately published in book form under the title Dark Alliance--the CIA conducted an internal investigation of its role in Central America related to the drug trade. Frederick Hitz, as the CIA Inspector General-- an independent watchdog approved by Congress--conducted the investigation. In October 1998, the CIA released a declassified version of Hitz's two-volume report.
- Delaval, Craig. “Cocaine, Conspiracy Theories & the C.I.A. in Central America”
- I’m relatively new at this so I hope you will pardon the fact I am somewhat dismayed that I cannot cite primary resources that prove my assertion (I’m almost certain I’ve seen books cited as references on here). But if you want a secondary source that also question the notion that Webb was vindicated (and also characterized the Hitz report far differently than this article does), see below.
- The IG's report cleared the CIA of complicity with the inner-city crack cocaine trade. It refuted charges that CIA officials knew that their Nicaraguan allies were dealing drugs. But, the report said that the CIA, in a number of cases, didn't bother to look into allegations about narcotics And the Hitz report describes how there was little or no direction for CIA operatives when confronted by the rampant traffic in drugs in Central American during the 1980s.”
- By the way, speaking of the Hitz report, this article says it says: “report described how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected more than 50 Contras and other drug traffickers, and by so doing thwarted federal investigations into drug crimes. Hitz published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering had made its way into Reagan's National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the operations of the Contras”. The citation for this is neither a secondary source describing the Hitz report nor is it the Hitz report itself; it is a archive for George Washington University that doesn’t reference the Hitz report (it references the Kerry Committee and North’s notebook (among other primary source by the way)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rja13ww33 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
We can chronicle sources which say he was vindicated and/or info was confirmed:
- Paterno, Susan. "The Sad Saga of Gary Webb" (Archive). American Journalism Review. June/July 2005.
- "But none of the papers adequately investigated the CIA's connection to Central American drug dealers, a relationship the agency confirmed in 1998, two years after Webb's series ran, and a year after he was exiled from journalism." and "Though hardly a vindication of Webb, the report marked one of the most extensive internal probes the CIA had ever launched, and it strengthened Webb's resolve to win the war his series had unleashed."
- Schou, Nick. "Ex-L.A. Times Writer Apologizes for "Tawdry" Attacks" (Archive). LA Times. Thursday May 30, 2013.
- "Webb was vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report, which revealed that for more than a decade the agency had covered up a business relationship it had with Nicaraguan drug dealers like Blandón."
- This may be of note in the article: "Katz seems to be referring to the fact that Times editor Shelby Coffey assigned a staggering 17 reporters to exploit any error in Webb's reporting, including the most minute. The newspaper's response to "Dark Alliance" was longer than Webb's series. It was replete with quotes from anonymous CIA sources who denied the CIA was connected to contra-backing coke peddlers in the ghettos."
- The 2013 Schou article was covered in: Pierce, Charles P. "Gary Webb And The Limits Of Vindication" (Archive). Esquire. June 18, 2013.
- As the Esquire notes, Webb once wrote for the Esquire
As for Katz's response:
- Katz, Jesse. "Seeing the Gray in 'Dark Alliance'" (Archive). Los Angeles Magazine. June 6, 2013.
- "Since the San Jose Mercury News’ 1996 publication of his “Dark Alliance” series, which alleged that a drug ring affiliated with Nicaragua’s CIA-backed Contra rebels helped “spark a crack explosion in urban America,” Webb has been portrayed as either a courageous reporter or a loose cannon, a hero or a hyperbolist. He spoke truth to power, or he ignored truth in stubborn pursuit of his own agenda. His work has been vindicated. His work has been discredited." (Katz was describing the media reaction - He was one of the guys who published critical articles back in the 1990s and many pro-Webb people criticized him... AFAIK he had to do an about-face)
In general terms:
- Alessio, John C. Social Problems and Inequality: Social Responsibility through Progressive Sociology. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., January 28, 2013. ISBN 1409494586, 9781409494584. p. 155. "Gary Webb was eventually vindicated, but not until his life, and the lives of many others, were ruined."
- You see, this demonstrates the problem with not relying on original sources in this issue. This guy claims that: “They were also crimes that involved the illegal importation and distribution of drugs in order to make money to fund the Contras. The CIA and other arms of the government were involved, and had drug lords on the payroll.” Not only is this vague as to what this “involvement” actually was or who this drug lord is, but the Hitz report actually says something far different (assuming this “drug lord” they refer to is Ross): “No information has been found to indicate that any past or present employee of CIA, or anyone acting on behalf of CIA, had any direct or indirect dealing with Ricky Ross, Oscar Danilo Blandon or Juan Norwin Meneses. Additionally, no information has been found to indicate that CIA had any relationship or contact with Ronald J. Lister or David Scott Weekly. No information has been found to indicate that any of these individuals was ever employed by CIA, or met by CIA employees or anyone acting on CIA's behalf.”
- It also claims that (the book) Dark Alliance is an “extremely well researched and documented book”, without informing the reader that a lot of this “documentation” came from drug dealers (facing prison sentences) and people connected with the Christic Institute (which isn’t even discussed in the original wiki article) were some of Webb’s investigators. So I hope this demonstrates the folly of relying on a bunch of second hand sources as to what Webb’s claims actually were and whether or not he was vindicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rja13ww33 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages community is fairly adamant against doing Misplaced Pages:Original research. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source and it's supposed to report on what other people say, so it is against the purpose of Misplaced Pages for someone to do his or her own analysis and say "those guys say the work was vindicated but they misinterpreted the source". However I found from the AJR link from Susan Paterno that not everyone agrees that the CIA report "vindicated" (using that specific word) Webb's work, so what you could do is change it to say: "Nick Schou says AAA while Susan Paterno says BBB and Jesse Katz says CCCC" with acknowledgement of Katz's previous involvement in the affair. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- This stuff about how only “other” people’s statements can be cited (no original material) not only seems odd but doesn’t seem accurate either when you look at other wiki pages. For example, the piece on President Kennedy’s assassination cites the Warren Commission Directly (i.e. a direct quote; NO middle man) in several instances. Its’ a similar thing with the Watergate scandal too (in terms of transcripts cited). I could go on but I think the point is clear. If the train is going off the rails in terms of conclusions, I might see your point. But it also seems odd to me that anyone would want to rely on other people’s interpretations when a wealth of primary resources are available.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is explained in the page against original research. You are allowed to quote from an original source document, but you are not allowed to advance a new interpretation or conclusion on the topic based upon that original source document (that is called synthesis), unless someone else has posted that conclusion in their own article. In terms of the interpretation of the documents you are stuck between what published authors say. If you want, I can make a post on the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and get some additional attention. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you think that is the best course, by all means. By the way, it’s interesting when you read this where “interpretations” are acceptable and where they are not. In the “Criticism” section, Glen Garvin’s review of Dark Alliance is discussed. Virtually none of the articles cited supporting Webb are evaluated (they are essentially taken at face value). But Garvin’s sure is saying: “However, Garvin offers no evidence of his own that directly refutes Webb's documentation, and simply assumes Webb is wrong by relying on second hand mainstream sources. Garvin then states Webb's work is really about "vindicating the American left””.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll make the post (I'm surprised only one of the people I've pinged have responded so far!). Thanks for catching that, by the way. There shouldn't be original analysis of Garvin's criticism. There should be only analysis of Garvin's criticism if some third party had criticized Garvin for writing what he did. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_notice_on_Gary_Webb:_Was_he_.22vindicated.22.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way the post (or notice) mentioned only the CIA's internal report. There is also the DOJ report that I mentioned before.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Taking the advice from the NPOV noticeboard, I attributed the "vindicated" statement to Nick Schou WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way the post (or notice) mentioned only the CIA's internal report. There is also the DOJ report that I mentioned before.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you think that is the best course, by all means. By the way, it’s interesting when you read this where “interpretations” are acceptable and where they are not. In the “Criticism” section, Glen Garvin’s review of Dark Alliance is discussed. Virtually none of the articles cited supporting Webb are evaluated (they are essentially taken at face value). But Garvin’s sure is saying: “However, Garvin offers no evidence of his own that directly refutes Webb's documentation, and simply assumes Webb is wrong by relying on second hand mainstream sources. Garvin then states Webb's work is really about "vindicating the American left””.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is explained in the page against original research. You are allowed to quote from an original source document, but you are not allowed to advance a new interpretation or conclusion on the topic based upon that original source document (that is called synthesis), unless someone else has posted that conclusion in their own article. In terms of the interpretation of the documents you are stuck between what published authors say. If you want, I can make a post on the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and get some additional attention. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- This stuff about how only “other” people’s statements can be cited (no original material) not only seems odd but doesn’t seem accurate either when you look at other wiki pages. For example, the piece on President Kennedy’s assassination cites the Warren Commission Directly (i.e. a direct quote; NO middle man) in several instances. Its’ a similar thing with the Watergate scandal too (in terms of transcripts cited). I could go on but I think the point is clear. If the train is going off the rails in terms of conclusions, I might see your point. But it also seems odd to me that anyone would want to rely on other people’s interpretations when a wealth of primary resources are available.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages community is fairly adamant against doing Misplaced Pages:Original research. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source and it's supposed to report on what other people say, so it is against the purpose of Misplaced Pages for someone to do his or her own analysis and say "those guys say the work was vindicated but they misinterpreted the source". However I found from the AJR link from Susan Paterno that not everyone agrees that the CIA report "vindicated" (using that specific word) Webb's work, so what you could do is change it to say: "Nick Schou says AAA while Susan Paterno says BBB and Jesse Katz says CCCC" with acknowledgement of Katz's previous involvement in the affair. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- It also claims that (the book) Dark Alliance is an “extremely well researched and documented book”, without informing the reader that a lot of this “documentation” came from drug dealers (facing prison sentences) and people connected with the Christic Institute (which isn’t even discussed in the original wiki article) were some of Webb’s investigators. So I hope this demonstrates the folly of relying on a bunch of second hand sources as to what Webb’s claims actually were and whether or not he was vindicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rja13ww33 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If anyone knows of any other sources that talk about this, please add them! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind the lead states: "his reportage was eventually vindicated; since his death, for example, both the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune have defended his "Dark Alliance" series." - So what one can do is find the newer (2000s and newer) articles from the two publications, and not only use them as sources but quote the relevant passages and maybe use the wording from the two articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a passage from the Los Angeles Times editorial written by Nick Schou: Schou, Nick (August 18, 2006). "The truth in 'Dark Alliance'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2011-04-05.
- "Meanwhile, spurred on by Webb's story, the CIA conducted an internal investigation that acknowledged in March 1998 that the agency had covered up Contra drug trafficking for more than a decade. Although the Washington Post and New York Times covered the report -- which confirmed key chunks of Webb's allegations -- the L.A. Times ignored it for four months, and largely portrayed it as disproving the "Dark Alliance" series. "We dropped the ball on that story," said Doyle McManus, the paper's Washington bureau chief, who helped supervise its response to "Dark Alliance.""
- WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Recent article disputing the notion he was vindicated: Leen, Jeff. "Gary Webb was no journalism hero, despite what 'Kill the Messenger' says"
- "Webb’s supporters point to a 1998 report by CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz as vindication, because it uncovered an agency mind-set of indifference to drug-smuggling allegations. Actually, it is more like the Kerry committee’s report on steroids: “We have found no evidence in the course of this lengthy investigation of any conspiracy by CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States,” Hitz said. “. . . There are instances where 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 or take action to resolve the allegations.”
Significantly, the report found no CIA relationship with the drug ring Webb had written about.
Webb could draw a Pyrrhic victory from Hitz’s report. His work and the controversy it engendered forced the CIA to undertake one of the most extensive internal investigations in its history. Jack Blum, the special counsel who led the investigation for the Kerry committee, said after Webb’s death that even though Webb got many of the details “completely wrong,” he had at least succeeded in focusing attention on the issue."Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. That's not a recent article but an opinion piece by a person who has been personally battling Webb for decades. As the comments section show, this opinion piece gets virtually every aspect of Webb's argument wrong and is predicated on a narrow straw man that the author sets up and knocks down. I'm afraid this is not an indication that this article is not neutral, it's a sign you don't know how to evaluate reliable sources or write about BLPs. The tag will be removed again. This article has been stable for years. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought wiki had a policy against evaluating what others say? Or is that not the policy? That's certainly what I was told above. (And how can you say its not a recent article? It came out 12 days ago.) And appearing in the Washington Post is certainly more credible than some of the other sources I've seen cited here. And since when should we take into account what people say in the comments section of an on line article? You want me to cite what has been posted in the comment section of some of the articles posted in Webb's favor?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- We evaluate sources for reliability. You didn't refer to an article, you referred to an opinion piece by an author who has been personally at odds with Webbs for decades. The comments section provides a plethora of links to other reliable sources that show the straw man for what it is.
This is a BLP andit demands the highest quality sources. The tag will be removed and the problem remedied. We don't keep tags on articles simply because an editor doesn't like what it says. You haven't been able to describe a neutrality problem in the current version that needs to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)- Even sources praising Webb have noted its flaws. (A recent piece in the NY Times said just that...in fact that it was "deeply flawed"....do you consider the NY Times credible?) And the fact that Garvin's criticism is evaluated and other sources are not shows the neutrality issue here. What is your excuse (by the way) for why the Garvin piece is evaluated by an editor (not another source)? Even another editor noted that was wrong.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I addressed Garvin below.
This is a BLP and should be sourced appropriately.The Garvin source is a book review of Dark Alliance and should be moved to that page. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I addressed Garvin below.
- Even sources praising Webb have noted its flaws. (A recent piece in the NY Times said just that...in fact that it was "deeply flawed"....do you consider the NY Times credible?) And the fact that Garvin's criticism is evaluated and other sources are not shows the neutrality issue here. What is your excuse (by the way) for why the Garvin piece is evaluated by an editor (not another source)? Even another editor noted that was wrong.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- We evaluate sources for reliability. You didn't refer to an article, you referred to an opinion piece by an author who has been personally at odds with Webbs for decades. The comments section provides a plethora of links to other reliable sources that show the straw man for what it is.
- I thought wiki had a policy against evaluating what others say? Or is that not the policy? That's certainly what I was told above. (And how can you say its not a recent article? It came out 12 days ago.) And appearing in the Washington Post is certainly more credible than some of the other sources I've seen cited here. And since when should we take into account what people say in the comments section of an on line article? You want me to cite what has been posted in the comment section of some of the articles posted in Webb's favor?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. That's not a recent article but an opinion piece by a person who has been personally battling Webb for decades. As the comments section show, this opinion piece gets virtually every aspect of Webb's argument wrong and is predicated on a narrow straw man that the author sets up and knocks down. I'm afraid this is not an indication that this article is not neutral, it's a sign you don't know how to evaluate reliable sources or write about BLPs. The tag will be removed again. This article has been stable for years. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
My plan for this article
After the NPOV dispute is finished, I want do this: split this article into two:
- Gary Webb - A biography of Gary Webb
- Dark Alliance - An article about the book (remember if a book has at least two reviews it meets WP:GNG) and about the preceding journalist stories (the background)
That way it is easier for someone to read about either topic. You can use a university library search (I use University of Houston Libraries) to generate a list of possible book reviews, and then use WP:RX to get personal copies of the said book reviews. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like you have help. It's already done (I fixed your link above). Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Viriditas! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Media reaction to Webb's articles
Might be interestign to include in this article as it backs many claims, that have until now, have been seen as unproven. Sources are declassified CIA Articles eg http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0001372115.pdf Full article: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-media-destruction-gary-webb/ -- 2003:47:8B1D:AD01:8407:D244:6D20:A713 (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Frankly, it's the best article ever written on the subject, so it should be included. It also condemns the actions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. I think it is safe to declare that the mainstream media is no longer a valid source for news. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- "I think it is safe to declare that the mainstream media is no longer a valid source for news." -- Like it ever was ... Xowets (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is not remotely close to being neutral or unbiased, IMHO. It has a clear agenda to rehabilitate Webb.
It is blazingly biased. As an earlier editor noted, there is plenty of material in the article itself to support quite the opposite conclusion to that which the apparent author of the article draws, namely that Webb was vindicated. No such thing is demonstrated by this article, nor was any such vindication EVER published by anyone other than the author of the Messenger book. This implied conspiracy of the LA Times, the New York Times, is a ridiculous assertion. c And Webb's very own editor at the San Jose Mercury undermined Webb's credibility to boot. At the very least, this article should be rewritten by someone who hasn't got such a blatant agenda to rehabilitate Webb. Anyway, please do not remove the banner alerting the reader to the dispute concerning the article's non-neutrality. Thank you. Edward Carr Franks, PhD 08:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Webb has been "rehabilitated" by the majority of reliable sources on the subject. You're pushing a minority POV. The so-called "conspiracy" of the major media is a well known established fact. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No signature, doctor? The google serves up this sentiment, attributed to your authorship, posted in comments on a self described, conservative republican blog.
"ENDED THE PRIOR JANUARY. So Quayle was right!"
Since you either do not know how to edit a wikipedia article, or to provide anything but your opinion of Webb and his journalism, your agenda and attitude seem the actual issues on display here. The California Society of Professional Journalists presented an award to Gary Webb in 1996 for his Dark Alliance reporting. In 1997, the National Society of which the state of California chapter was a member, awarded Webb's San Jose Mercury editor, Jerry Cerros, for discrediting Webb and his reporting. How would you be a fair judge of whether, "Such papers have never been known to be rabid pawns of the Right, let alone Reagan or the CIA." Your personal politics and belief system do not trump the actual details of history. See: From AJR, June/July 2005 Here’s what was wrong and what was right in "Dark Alliance." By Susan Paterno From AJR, June/July 2005 The Sad Saga of Gary Webb "...But while Webb overreached, some key findings in “Dark Alliance” were on target--and important." By Susan Paterno From AJR, June/July 2005 I Don’t Want to Talk About It By Susan Paterno "... A former Mercury News staff member told me an editor had removed from Herhold's column his observation that the "Dark Alliance" editors were later promoted. Since Herhold and I had talked about the editors' promotions, I called him for his thoughts. He had no comment...." Ruidoso (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for my lack of Wiki cred, but I'm trying. I am not an GOP operative, let alone blogger, as you seem to think, though I certainly wouldn't hide it from anyone. My bio is on twitter and elsewhere and it's clear enough to all that I'm a conservative Neocon, aka Reaganite, and proud of it, if that matters, which is why this article, which I only became aware of because the Kommie Kommandos (Zinn, Damon, Affleck et al) are pushing this fairy tale of a movie. And, please understand that some of my best friends are Marxists (really!), so I don't use such references in a pejorative sense. The fact that others have expressed similar sentiments to mine simply supports my case. The question here is bias, not facts or our politics. Here's my signature, which I'm proud to have finally figured out how to do correctly (despite my GOP-IQ) with some help from Wiki pros. I'll respond to your no doubt incontrovertible comments, however futile the effort will likely be, as soon as I can muster the courage (and time). Edward Carr Franks, PhD (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's no bias and you haven't shown any bias. This article isn't based on any film. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the Dr. should provide detail if he has a dispute here. But some of your comments demonstrate you are not impartial on this subject. I think a third person should be involved to mediate and a re-write here should happen. A number of issues that I have raised have still not been resolved (including the criticism of Garvin's take when another editor pointed out I was right on that; see the "Vindicated" section). I have also added a (recent) article that questions that Webb was vindicated, and I plan to add more. Please stop removing the neutrality issue at the top. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I will remove the tag again. Your concerns were addressed and you didn't like the outcome. This aricle has been neutral and stable for years. Now, there is a new film about Webb and it is attracting POV pushers like yourself to this page whose only purpose is to skew this biography. Sorry, that won't be permitted. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently we need a third person to help out here (I sent an e-mail to wiki) since you seem to be very biased on this subject. As I pointed out before, this article mischaracterizes the DOJ report and the CIA report. It also evaluates Garvin's criticism (which it does not do for others). There are other issues as well. As far as when/why I looked at this: if you will note, I raised the flag on this months in advance of the movie. So as long as I am able to, I will keep the flag on.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- The tag will be removed. Your job here is not to keep a tag on an article as long as you are able, and if you persist in using this account for this sole purpose you could end up blocked. Your job is to resolve the problem through discussion. An editor has already addressed your concerns and it was reviewed at the noticeboard. A solution was implemented. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- No real discussion has happened. The issues I have brought up have simply been ignored. If I am not able to address this hopefully someone else will.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion occurred up above and a third party weighed in on the NPOV noticeboard. what other concerns do you currently have? Please be brief in your reply. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think I've already mentioned my issues: this article mischaracterizes the DOJ report and the CIA report. It also evaluates Garvin's criticism (which it does not do for others). You say the opinion piece from the Washington Post is ok to evaluate (and apparently Garvin's criticism as well). But nothing by Schou is critically examined. Why is he above questioning?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there's a communication problem. "Evaluation" refers to evaluating sources for reliability, not for evaluating claims. I believe your concerns were previously addressed by other editors above. Your current concerns seem to be based on your POV, not on a problem with the sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- The issue taken (for example) with the Garvin piece was not it's reliability, it makes statements about what Garvin's piece offers (in terms of evidence) saying "However, Garvin offers no evidence of his own that directly refutes Webb's documentation, and simply assumes Webb is wrong by relying on second hand mainstream sources" Ignoring the fact that Garvin offers evidence directly from Webb's book. And I don't think you should be questioning my POV considering some of the things you have said here (note your attack on Dr. Franks above). Are you saying you have no biased POV on this?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Garvin's criticism is a book review of Dark Alliance and should be moved to that page.
If removing it from this BLP will result in the removal of the neutrality tag, then please do so.Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)- What about the other sources that evaluated Dark Alliance? Why would Garvin's piece be removed and the rest stay?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I can only address and solve a problem that I know about. I'm not currently aware of other problems. Please stick to addressing the problem under discussion (Garvin), solving it, and moving on. As it stands, you claim there is a neutrality issue with Garvin's book review. You have several choices. You can 1) remove it 2) modify it 3) move it 4) or do nothing. You can't keep moving the goal posts and hold this article hostage. You added a neutrality tag and highlighted a problem on the talk page.
I've looked at the problem you just raised and I've determined that this article should focus on the BLP aspects.This doesn't have any bearing on other content at this time. Please only address the Garvin material in your reply and move towards resolution of this particular problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)- Before I answer, is there any way we can get a third party involved in this? I know its been tried before on the NPOV board, but I'm not sure that person read the overall article. It appears he just commented on one aspect of it. Perhaps I can post something over there, although this is a complicated subject, I've read about it for years (since it first broke) and most haven't.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- You can file an WP:RFC to get more people involved. Is there a reason you are unable to fix the problem you perceive according to the above parameters and remove the tag? I get the feeling you are holding this article hostage to your demands, which show no sign of ever ending. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am not attempting to hold anything "hostage", just looking for other pov's on this. The fix I can think of would be an overall re-write. One that actually specifically discusses Webb's claims and specifically answers them (which isn't done here). I would like others to look at the issues I have raised and see if they agree with the article. I will post the RfC statement.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are holding the article hostage. When asked to specify the exact problem, you pointed to Garvin. When I told you how to fix the problem, leaving the solution entirely in your hands, you refused to fix it and once again moved the goalposts, claiming that the neutrality problem demands a rewrite. Since you can't point to a specific problem that can be fixed, I'm going to remove the tag again. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am not attempting to hold anything "hostage", just looking for other pov's on this. The fix I can think of would be an overall re-write. One that actually specifically discusses Webb's claims and specifically answers them (which isn't done here). I would like others to look at the issues I have raised and see if they agree with the article. I will post the RfC statement.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- You can file an WP:RFC to get more people involved. Is there a reason you are unable to fix the problem you perceive according to the above parameters and remove the tag? I get the feeling you are holding this article hostage to your demands, which show no sign of ever ending. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Before I answer, is there any way we can get a third party involved in this? I know its been tried before on the NPOV board, but I'm not sure that person read the overall article. It appears he just commented on one aspect of it. Perhaps I can post something over there, although this is a complicated subject, I've read about it for years (since it first broke) and most haven't.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I can only address and solve a problem that I know about. I'm not currently aware of other problems. Please stick to addressing the problem under discussion (Garvin), solving it, and moving on. As it stands, you claim there is a neutrality issue with Garvin's book review. You have several choices. You can 1) remove it 2) modify it 3) move it 4) or do nothing. You can't keep moving the goal posts and hold this article hostage. You added a neutrality tag and highlighted a problem on the talk page.
- What about the other sources that evaluated Dark Alliance? Why would Garvin's piece be removed and the rest stay?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Garvin's criticism is a book review of Dark Alliance and should be moved to that page.
- The issue taken (for example) with the Garvin piece was not it's reliability, it makes statements about what Garvin's piece offers (in terms of evidence) saying "However, Garvin offers no evidence of his own that directly refutes Webb's documentation, and simply assumes Webb is wrong by relying on second hand mainstream sources" Ignoring the fact that Garvin offers evidence directly from Webb's book. And I don't think you should be questioning my POV considering some of the things you have said here (note your attack on Dr. Franks above). Are you saying you have no biased POV on this?Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there's a communication problem. "Evaluation" refers to evaluating sources for reliability, not for evaluating claims. I believe your concerns were previously addressed by other editors above. Your current concerns seem to be based on your POV, not on a problem with the sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think I've already mentioned my issues: this article mischaracterizes the DOJ report and the CIA report. It also evaluates Garvin's criticism (which it does not do for others). You say the opinion piece from the Washington Post is ok to evaluate (and apparently Garvin's criticism as well). But nothing by Schou is critically examined. Why is he above questioning?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion occurred up above and a third party weighed in on the NPOV noticeboard. what other concerns do you currently have? Please be brief in your reply. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- No real discussion has happened. The issues I have brought up have simply been ignored. If I am not able to address this hopefully someone else will.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- The tag will be removed. Your job here is not to keep a tag on an article as long as you are able, and if you persist in using this account for this sole purpose you could end up blocked. Your job is to resolve the problem through discussion. An editor has already addressed your concerns and it was reviewed at the noticeboard. A solution was implemented. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently we need a third person to help out here (I sent an e-mail to wiki) since you seem to be very biased on this subject. As I pointed out before, this article mischaracterizes the DOJ report and the CIA report. It also evaluates Garvin's criticism (which it does not do for others). There are other issues as well. As far as when/why I looked at this: if you will note, I raised the flag on this months in advance of the movie. So as long as I am able to, I will keep the flag on.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I will remove the tag again. Your concerns were addressed and you didn't like the outcome. This aricle has been neutral and stable for years. Now, there is a new film about Webb and it is attracting POV pushers like yourself to this page whose only purpose is to skew this biography. Sorry, that won't be permitted. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the Dr. should provide detail if he has a dispute here. But some of your comments demonstrate you are not impartial on this subject. I think a third person should be involved to mediate and a re-write here should happen. A number of issues that I have raised have still not been resolved (including the criticism of Garvin's take when another editor pointed out I was right on that; see the "Vindicated" section). I have also added a (recent) article that questions that Webb was vindicated, and I plan to add more. Please stop removing the neutrality issue at the top. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have discussed the many problems with this and you have ignored them (Garvin's piece was just one of them). I have cited sources to back those concerns as well. Therefore I see no purpose in discussing this with you further until the RfC tag is addressed with other parties. (You obviously have some sort of personal interest in this.) I have posted the RfC request. I will put the neutrality tag back on until they weigh in.....I will abide by what they say.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I have not ignored anything. I have directly addressed the problems you have claimed exist along with another editor, and these problems have been addressed here on this page. The tag will be removed again and you will be directed to the admin noticeboard will I will be reporting your disruptive behavior. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- No you really haven't. And I've already sent an e-mail to the admins about you.....so that's fine with me. The issues here are still need resolution. Allow the RfC people to weigh in so it can be resolved. Whatever they say, I'll go along with.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I directly addressed your concerns at 03:47, 30 October, and your concerns were also addressed by another user who brought it to the NPOV board. In this instance you were told that the material about a book review probably doesn't belong here but in the book article instead. You were also told that you have several options. You can 1) remove it 2) modify it 3) move it 4) or do nothing. What you can't do is keep moving the goal posts and hold this article hostage. Is any of this making sense yet? Your concerns were directly addressed by several editors and you have refused to do anything. You don't get to permanently affix a NPOV tag on this article simply because you personally believe it deserves a "rewrite". You have to have specific, actionable items that other editors can address and in this case, they have been addressed. You just don't like the answers you've been given. Sorry, but that doesn't give you the right to hold this article hostage. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am not attempting to hold anything hostage. If you feel this strongly about it, I will leave the NPOV tag off. As long as the RfC people weigh in on my concerns (including he deatils of the allegations and the treatment of different resources)....the issue will (hopefully) be resovled.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I directly addressed your concerns at 03:47, 30 October, and your concerns were also addressed by another user who brought it to the NPOV board. In this instance you were told that the material about a book review probably doesn't belong here but in the book article instead. You were also told that you have several options. You can 1) remove it 2) modify it 3) move it 4) or do nothing. What you can't do is keep moving the goal posts and hold this article hostage. Is any of this making sense yet? Your concerns were directly addressed by several editors and you have refused to do anything. You don't get to permanently affix a NPOV tag on this article simply because you personally believe it deserves a "rewrite". You have to have specific, actionable items that other editors can address and in this case, they have been addressed. You just don't like the answers you've been given. Sorry, but that doesn't give you the right to hold this article hostage. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- No you really haven't. And I've already sent an e-mail to the admins about you.....so that's fine with me. The issues here are still need resolution. Allow the RfC people to weigh in so it can be resolved. Whatever they say, I'll go along with.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I have not ignored anything. I have directly addressed the problems you have claimed exist along with another editor, and these problems have been addressed here on this page. The tag will be removed again and you will be directed to the admin noticeboard will I will be reporting your disruptive behavior. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have discussed the many problems with this and you have ignored them (Garvin's piece was just one of them). I have cited sources to back those concerns as well. Therefore I see no purpose in discussing this with you further until the RfC tag is addressed with other parties. (You obviously have some sort of personal interest in this.) I have posted the RfC request. I will put the neutrality tag back on until they weigh in.....I will abide by what they say.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
References
- "Here's what was wrong and what was right in Dark Alliance". American Journalism Review. 2005-06-30.
Recent Alternative Coverage
Well pretty much what those voices were saying all the time, they just got way more percieved credibility (they always had real credibility), but the one percieved by the public should be fine now, unless for those who are full on aspartame, glyphosate, flouride etc and can't wipe their behind without government's approval.
As per wikipedia rulez, it's no surprise the death is marked as a "suicide", even though it's a total joke. Alex Jones just happens to have been close to Gary Webb, so after the film he talked about it a bit, I am not the old cat so I didn't know about Gary at all, so it's not a detailed coverage, just a mention, but there's one summary video, a special report, they call it, so why don't you guys just see for yourself.
Special Summary (October 2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcArA8D9KLw
A few videos from radio broadcast that may go into a bit more background/detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1BDoiRSDeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD5ziYk_qck
Ricky Ross was on the show today, it just happened so it's not uploaded yet, he'll get in studio next week, so I pasted the part 1 of a interview from 4 years i found, other parts should be displayed on the recommended videos area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBU7P5y4PsQ
The Film Brief Review (sneak peak): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pMiRjJi7M
Recent report from NNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0DAKBz2Sp0 Xowets (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Who kills themselves with TWO bullets to the head?
- Well, there are plenty of sources that suggest and provided an argument that it was murder. PrisonPlanet, Rense, etc. Sources that, I would guess, are considered non-RS here. But presumably they use reliable secondary sources that in turn could be used to provide balanced info on his death. The folks that are edit warring to replace suicide with murder would do well to switch tactics.
- OTOH, "He wrote and mailed letters to his ex-wife, his three children, his brother and his mother. He updated his will," per, e.g. this recent piece on the movie. I haven't tried to evaluate the arguments but someone could... --Elvey 00:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Was Webb Vindicated? Is this article specific enough?
As I noted in the Vindicated section of this page, there appear to be issues regarding the neutrality of this article and also treatment of the specific claims Webb made. In the introductory portion, several of his claims are listed and the article later claims he was vindicated without really being clear as to how he was vindicated. In the section above, I try to cite material both original and 3rd person that dispute this, but some editors took issue. I would like more commentators on this because at least one of the editors appears to be not impartial. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I'm unimpressed by your sources and argument above. I agree, there's a movement to rehabilitate Webb and sympathetic journalists write whatever newspaper stories they want to push their new narrative. That said, with Misplaced Pages's leftist tilt, I think the present article is as balanced as it will ever get. If you want to make changes you have to specifically target individual sentences, challenge references, and offer other reliable sources to redefine "neutral point of view." Misplaced Pages is not for newcomers. I'd recommend you find other articles to work on, make a couple thousand edits, and come back when you're ready. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- My sources are some of the very sources that people are using to say Webb was vindicated. When you actually read these reports (i.e. the Hitz report and the DOJ report), they take on Webb's claims on a point by point basis and pretty much annihilate them. Since only second hand sources are allowed (i.e. what others say), I've cited several (including Frontline). They've all been dismissed. In one case because Webb apparently had a feud with one of the writers; I have yet to hear an explanation as to why his opinion is worthless while Nick Schou's opinion is objective (especially considering the fact he and Webb were buddies; Webb thanked him in foreword to Dark Alliance). But in any case, you are correct that I am fairly inexperienced at editing on wiki which is why I put out the RfC so possibly a consensus of opinions could be reached as to what (if anything) should be done. Since (IMHO) this article isn't just missing a minor fact or two (something I have fixed in other wiki articles). Thanks for your comment.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Funny that Glenn Garvin is cited in this article. If anyone ever opened the link to his article, then he'd clearly see that rather than journalistic source, we're given fully raged encounter of some crazed rightwinger. Please, get rid of that 7 lines of irrelevant banter in this article.
KP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.161 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- First off, this comment probably does not belong in this section. And secondly, Glen Garvin is an award winning reporter who spent a great deal of time embedded with the Contras (years if memory serves). This is as opposed to Webb who relied a great deal (for his overseas investigation) on people associated with the Christic Institute (like George Hodel). He certainly is at least as objective as (for example) Nick Schou whom Webb foreword to Dark Alliance and is cited throughout this article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles