Talk:Gary Webb/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removed Jack Anderson link?

Several days ago I included a link to the Jack Anderson wiki page and it has since been removed, why?

Perhaps because it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic?--csloat 17:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A journalist elements within the US government planned on assassinating has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Gary Webb?

Is there an echo in here?

Seriously, did Gary Webb report on this? Did Gary Webb have anything to do with this? If so, let us know, but so far there is no link whatsoever.--csloat 06:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my earlier question. *sarcasm*

But you are right, Gary Webb did not report on the planned assassination of Jack Anderson, in fact I'm fairly certain Webb was not even a journalist when that occurred, but considering some of the claims regarding Webbs death and the known facts regarding certain elements within the Nixon administration and their intentions toward Jack Anderson, as well as the fact that there is already a link to another journalist who died under mysterious circumstances in the early 1990s on the Gary Webb page as well as a link to Gary Webb on the Jack Anderson page, I think it is pertinent and should be included.--LamontCranston 06:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if I am being dense, but I just don't understand. Did Gary Webb have anything to do with Jack Anderson? Is your claim that this belongs here just because it is another mysterious death that could have been an assassination? If we include all such folks here the list would be practically endless. If there are other such links they should be removed too -- I think this article should be about Gary Webb, not about mysterious deaths or conspiracy theories in general. --csloat 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if I am being dense, but if we were to remove references to "mysterious deaths" then all references to Mr. Webbs suicide would need to be removed. No, Webb did not have anything to do with Jack Anderson. "Is your claim that this belongs here just because it is another mysterious death that could have been an assassination" - I suggest you read again: Jack Anderson is not dead, they merely planned to kill him. As for “conspiracy theories”, well I seem to recall that’s the slur they used against Gary Webb, despite being vindicated by a subsequent CIA investigation in 1998 and a previous investigation by Senator John Kerry in 1987.--LamontCranston 12:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude you are barking up the wrong tree. I am not trying to be pejorative about conspiracy theories; just suggesting that this information belongs in a different category. This page is about Webb, and if it is about any "conspiracy theory" it is just about such theories that are relevant to Webb. Jack Anderson had nothing to do with Gary Webb, therefore he doesn't belong here. How hard is that to understand? Can someone else please engage this conversation so I know I am not going nuts here? --csloat 03:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"This page is about Webb, and if it is about any "conspiracy theory" it is just about such theories that are relevant to Webb." applying this logic of yours to my argument, it makes perfect sense to include a link to the Jack Anderson page. --LamontCranston 17:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? Does anyone else understand this claim? Am I missing something here? As far as I can tell, there is nothing directly connecting Webb and Anderson other than a vague similarity of circumstances? Please, someone else intervene in this discussion.--csloat 07:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 66.68.69.130

66.68.69.130 (talk · contribs) appears to be editing articles without reading them, copying and pasting the same or similar content to Gary Webb, Contras and Sandinista National Liberation Front. In the case of this article, 66.68.69.130 appears to be claiming that a 1997 USDOJ/OIG Special Report came after an October 8, 1998, CIA internal investigation (66.68.69.130 may be close to the truth -- it looks like the Dec. 1997 report was withheld until July, 1998 [1]). I suggest that 66.68.69.130 read the article before editing. Furthermore, 66.68.69.130 continues to duplicate information about the media that is already in the "Dark Alliance" section. Any information that 66.68.69.130 wants to add should not duplicate information in the article, and should follow the chronology already in place (paying particular attention to the "Investigations" section dated July 23, 1998, and the "Dark Alliance: the book" section. 66.68.69.130 will notice that the information he wants to add already appears in the article twice. Please do not add it for a third time). Lastly, 66.68.69.130 repeats the same, tired distortion that Webb's assertions were "later widely debunked". In fact, the DOJ quote 66.68.69.130 is fond of pasting, namely , "...claims that Blandon and Meneses were responsible for introducing crack cocaine into South Central Los Angeles and spreading the crack epidemic throughout the country were unsupported" -- this exact claim was never made by Gary Webb. —Viriditas | Talk 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

2x ext links Sacbee

I have reorganized the external links. Given the large number links we now have, I we can afford to be selective and I have moved these two here:

• Obituary, Sacramento Bee
• "Reporter's suicide by two shots confirmed by coroner", Sacramento Bee

If any one feels strongly they should be included, please state your reasons and we can discuss it. -- Viajero 09:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They should be moved to a "Notes" section and used as footnote references. I'll get around to it some time (anyone is welcome to help). Feel free to leave them here, for now. --Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finally starting on this...a year later. —Viriditas | Talk 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Opinion magazines with a recognized readership - e.g. Counterpunch - are fine for indicating notable opinions. The Sacramento Bee is a reliable source. Two CIA self-investigations are also reliable sources. Please do not follow me from page to page deleting quotes, TDC; it is trolling, wikistalking behavior. You'll find that it is much more satisfying to actually work on articles you know something about and try to improve them rather than deleting things to annoy other users.--csloat 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As has been argued in the past (succesfully too I might add), while some of Counterpunch’s contributors may have some notoriety, the use of material from sites like counterpunch and FPM are highly discouraged and Richard Thieme’s notability on this subject appears to be zero. I would add to this that “From the Wilderness” and Indymedia (and most especially your university website) most definitely do not conform to WP:RS and WP:V. Also, the information on the CIA reports seems to have been cherry picked to present the material in a way to make it as supportive of Webb's work as possible, this too needs corrections. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's remove the Daniel Pipes quote too then, since it is not from a refereed publication, and is written by someone whose, as you put it, "notability on this subject appears to be zero." Fair enough? Stuff from Indymedia, or a university website, are fine, if they reproduce published articles from reliable sources, as these do. Also, I don't understand why you took away Webb's Pulitzer; it's pretty typical of your edits to sneak in the most controversial edit without ever mentioning it, in the hopes that other editors will miss it. As for the CIA material being "cherry picked"; that is nonsense. I don't believe that you ever even read those CIA reports, nor the Webb series to begin with. As I have said, it is pretty clear your only interest in this page is in annoying me by stalking articles I have contributed to in the past. I'd encourage you to work on articles for the purpose of improving them rather than for the purpose of annoying other editors. Thanks!--csloat 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pipes wrote a rather lengthy book on conspiracy theories, and devoted a section to this one, so I think his comments are relvant. Webb never won a Pulitzer, the San Jose Mercury News did, but not Webb. Its dishonest to inlcude him on that. The reposted articles from your university website and indymedia are not fine because the content is unverifiable. Find the information elsewhere, where all can verify its meaning or it goes. I spent all last nite reading the CIA reports [2], and I can say with a good deal of certainty that the informaiton presented bears little resemblance to the report. Question my motives all you like, but you have far more pressing work to do, like looking for those lost sources. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pipes book is long, but he has no expertise in the subject matter and it was never refereed. So his comments are not relevant here, or at least, they fail to meet the standard you set for articles you happen to disagree with. Webb was a central player in the Pulitzer story, and was reported as such, so it is dishonest to delete this information. The articles are fine because the content is verifiable -- go to the freaking library and look them up yourself if you think I or my university altered the content. The information is from the Congressional Record, New York Times, etc. -- all verifiable sources. Bitching that the link is to a university site is ridiculous -- if you want to remove the link, fine, but instead of the FACT tag just include the facts (i.e. a bibliographic cite without the link). Claiming something is not "verifiable" because it's not on the web is ludicrous. As for you spending the night reading, good for you, but your "certainty" is meaningless compared to the facts presented here.--csloat 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One more note here, if you're going to delete relevant citations from the article, try not to butcher the grammar too. Thanks.--csloat 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I know you have been dying to use you "Cocaine Importing Agency" materials somewhere outside of class, but this is not the place. On Webb's Pulitzer, interestingly enough, the Pulitzer site does not seem fit to mention him , so why are we?Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Pulitzer site references exactly what was stated. [3] Furthermore, Robert Chalmers of The Independent visited the home after Webb's death and wrote "...the room is decorated with his trophies: a Pulitzer prize hangs next to his HL Mencken award." —Viriditas | Talk 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't replace the pulitzer stuff; I'll let someone else fight that battle with you. I am not dying to use this material anywhere (and I don't use them in any classes); if you find better links to those articles, go for it, but don't just delete them and replace them with a fact tag as if you don't believe they exist. Cite the articles in the normal manner if you are offended by links to websites from state universities, but don't just delete them. I'm not sure what is wrong with a link to a university site, but whatever. The point is these articles are sourced to the LATimes and Congressional Record, not to a university.--csloat 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You did not replace the pulitzer stuff because you dont have a leg to stand on, dont be coy. Also, you most certainly do use the material, I saw it on your syllabus. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

TDC, please be civil towards your fellow editors. I restored the information you removed about the Pulitzer price because it is accurate and you are misinformed. Additionally, I added a more detailed reference. —Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility is a 2 way street, and your citation for the pulitzer does not mention Webb bieng part of the award. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pulitzer Prize, in General News Reporting was awarded to the Staff of the San Jose Mercury News for its coverage of the October 17, 1989, Bay Area earthquake. As a member of the staff, Webb received the award, and the award itself was seen in Webb's home by Robert Chalmers of The Independent. —Viriditas | Talk 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All very interesting and all very irrelevant. It's not on the Pulitzers website and therefore does not meet WP:V. And since there is an accuracy dispute, dont remove the tag. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, you are trolling. The Pulitzer Prize, in General News Reporting was awarded to the Staff of the San Jose Mercury News for its coverage of the October 17, 1989, Bay Area earthquake. As a member of the staff, Webb received the award, and the award itself was seen in Webb's home by Robert Chalmers of The Independent. (Chalmers, Robert. (2005). "The Last Rebel; In 1996, the award-winning journalist Gary Webb uncovered CIA links to Los Angeles drug dealers. It was an amazing scoop but one that would ruin his career and drive him to suicide. His widow, Susan Bell, looks back on a shameful secret history." The Independent on Sunday (London, England) (Oct 9, 2005): p8.) —Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guy, but thats bullshit. I dont know if Webb bought it on EBay or what, but the Pulitzer site does not credit him. Again, in case you did not catch that THE PULITZER CITE DID NOT CREDIT HIM. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The pulitzer credits the staff of the San Jose Mercury News of which he was a part, and that is documented. According to Dan Hellinger, Webb, "...shared with the staff a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the 1989 California earthquake." (St. Louis Journalism Review 35.273 (Feb 2005): p18(2).) However, Susan Paterno writes that Webb "...spent the next few years exposing incompetence in state government, helping the paper win a 1990 Pulitzer Prize for covering the Loma Prieta earthquake, writing stories investigating faulty construction in highway bridges that collapsed." (American Journalism Review 27.3 (June-July 2005): p20(16).) Furthermore, Pia Hinckle states, "He was also part of the six-person Mercury News team that won a 1990 Pulitzer for its coverage of the 1989 San Francisco earthquake." (Columbia Journalism Review v36.n2 (July-August 1997): pp38(6). ) Referring to the rebuttal of Web's thesis in the Los Angeles Times, Peter Kornbluh of Columbia Journalism Review alleges that "...one Times reporter characterized himself as being "assigned to the 'get Gary Webb team"' and another was heard to say "We're going to take away that guy's Pulitzer." (Columbia Journalism Review v35.n5 (Jan-Feb 1997): pp33(7).) —Viriditas | Talk 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the category until I can confirm that its usage is appropriate. TDC's "dispute" is not over facts, but regards the use of the correct category. —Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

TDC I teach over 20 different courses at different times; which syllabus did you see it on? I'm glad to hear you are educating yourself using my teaching materials, but please don't use such materials to insult me. It is considered a personal attack by wikipedia standards. If you have a problem with my teaching, take it up with my department head. I don't understand what any of that has to do with the question of whether verifiable articles from sources like the Congressional Record can be used on wikipedia. Your whine that they are reproduced on a university web page simply has nothing to do with this discussion.--csloat 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To speak to the basic issue here, "reliable" does not mean "having no point of view." As is implicit in the WP:NPOV policy, everyone has a point of view. The goal of WP is to provide the range of POVs and not to base its articles on the nonexistent sources out there without POV. Nareek 10:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

Maybe someone can clear this up for me. The lead paragraph states:

"Webb reported that the CIA was not only aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by the Contra personnel but directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras."

Then, in the Dark Alliance section, the article states:

"Webb never asserted that the CIA directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras,"

(emphasis added). I'm not sure which of these statements is correct and so I've flagged it for someone else to clarify. BFD1 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable. It looks like the troll User:TDC deliberately added that contradiction [4] on July 20. Something needs to be done about that user. In any case, I've reverted to the previous version. —Viriditas | Talk 09:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree, the guy is a troll. Anyone who read the article or the book can confirm that Webb never made the claim TDC accuses him of. I have often caught him making false claims in articles, or deleting accurate ones wholesale, and then demanding that others who he disagrees with go do additional research before he will allow an article to be restored to its previously accurate state. Rarely does this result in improvements in the article, and if it does, it is only after agonizing flamewars in the talk page.--csloat 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Webbs thoughts on the CIA's involvement

From page one, Maxine Water’s intro:

“The CIA, DEA, DIA and the FBI knew about drug trafficking in South Central Los Angeles. They were either a part of the trafficking or turned a blind eye to it. “

From Page 338 of Dark Alliance

As an aside, Rewald also told Anderson that he was approached in 1982 by “a senior CIA official and asked if he would help in a CIA drug smuggling operation. When Rewald told the CIA that he had no one in his firm with drug operations, the CIA man contradicted hum and named (a Rewald) employee who had been a longtime CIA contract agent in Southeast Asia.

From the San Francisco Gate review[5]: Webb is most controversial when implicating the CIA, relying heavily on slippery phrases like ``CIA agent. To him it is important that in December 1981 a ``CIA agent, Contra commander Enrique Bermudez, ``had given the goddamned order to Meneses and Blandon to begin trafficking in support of the Contras. In the larger context of such a powerful book, this seems likely to generate needless quibbles, and remains a side issue at best. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include quotes from Maxine Waters (which is not on p.1 in my copy) or information about something Rewald told Anderson "as an aside" about 1982, that would be fine later on in the page, but it hardly belongs in the intro, which should state the main thesis of Webb's book clearly and without exaggeration or distortion. The charges at stake are incendiary enough as it is without being intentionally distorted or misinterpreted. I'm not sure at all what the SF Gate quote has to do with this.--csloat 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Document vs. Assert

For Wikipedia, a fact is something that everyone agrees on. Would Daniel Pipes and Glenn Garvin agree that Webb "document[ed] that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by the Contra personnel"? Nareek 10:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did provide copious documents. . . but I think "assert" would be a better word. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If he provided "documents," why would "assert" be a better word? "Assert" implies a lack of evidence. "Documents" implies, "documents," which we seem agreed that he supplied.--csloat 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, documented does not mean provided documents. It means to proved your case using documents. You can't say, "He documented his case, but the documents turned out to be bogus"--that's not idiomatic English.

The fact that he provided documents to back up his assertion is mentioned in the next sentence. Though even that sentence could probably use toning down a bit.

I'll admit that I'm a big fan of Webb; that's why I'm editing here, because I think he deserves a good article. But a good Wikipedia article is one that doesn't take sides, that presents the issues, cites sources and lets the reader pursue it further.

I promise I'll send my high horse on his way now. Good boy! Have an apple! Nareek 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - which documents turned out to be bogus? I'm not aware of any of the documents or testimony that supported his arguments having been fabricated. To me, to say something is "documented" does not mean "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" but rather "we have actual documents that provide evidence to support this argument." If we can't agree on this word it's fine, perhaps there is a better word, but I don't like "asserted" since it sounds like there are no documents whatsoever backing it up. The original SJMerc website had a plethora of documents in the form of photographs, testimony, audio recordings, etc. that supported the argument Webb's article put forth. I have researched the three main replies to the Webb series -- LAT, NYT, and WP -- pretty carefully, and while they correctly dressed the Merc down a bit for sensationalizing the evidence, none of them indicated that the evidence had been fabricated or did not exist. Most ironic is the fact that in november 96 I believe, while the controversy was still raging, a Miami jury indicted a Venezuelan CIA asset for bringing a ridiculous amount of cocaine to Miami and Atlanta (something like 20,000 pounds), and the CIA admitted to the grand jury that they authorized some of the shipments. (Of course, that's not what the Webb story was specifically about, but it does show the irony of the major papers arguing so vehemently against the Webb story when lots of documentation existed to support it).

The issue of documentation brings up another issue, which is the Mercury News website, which was absolutely revolutionary at the time. I can't think of an earlier example of that kind of use of the web to support and document a controversial news story. The blogging revolution certainly owes a lot to the Webb story, and something about that should be discussed in the article - I'll have to look around for citations to support my claim here of course, but I don't think it's very controversial. This was just over a decade ago, after all.--csloat 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, sorry--I didn't mean to suggest that Webb's documents were bogus--I was just using that as an illustration of how the word is (not) used. I in fact do believe, personally, that Webb documented his charges, but I don't think Wikipedia can adopt that position--because not everybody agrees that he did so. Nareek 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us who disagrees that he did so? As I said, people have criticized certain of Webb's claims, but I don't know of a single source that claims he did not document these points or that the documentation was somehow invalid. Unless you take "documented" to mean "proved beyond all doubt," I'm not sure I see your point.--csloat 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It does mean "proved", basically. That is my point. And I don't think everyone acknowledges that he proved his central claim. Nareek 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It means "documented," not "proved."; try this:

[tr.v. (-mnt) doc·u·ment·ed, doc·u·ment·ing, doc·u·ments

1. To furnish with a document or documents.

2. To support (an assertion or claim, for example) with evidence or decisive information.

3. To support (statements in a book, for example) with written references or citations; annotate.

None of those definitions state (or even imply) *proof*; what we are talking about is evidence in the form of documentation, which Webb certainly provided. I agree not everyone acknowledges he proved his central claim (to be more precise, I think there was disagreement about what his central claim actually was -- most people agreed there was documentation that the CIA knowingly allowed drug dealers to deal drugs, but they disagreed with a claim that Webb never actually made - that there was some kind of CIA conspiracy to push crack cocaine into inner cities). Anyway, perhaps you can find another word we can both be happy about, or perhaps we should rewrite that whole section. As I said, I think this article would benefit from a discussion of the documentation itself, and of Webb's use of the web to disseminate that documentation.--csloat 00:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many colons! Let's start over again over here.

I think the second definition is the relevant one here, and the key word is "decisive"--you provide the information that decides the case, which is to say proves it.

"Documented" is one of those words like "noted", "pointed out" (OK, that's two words), "revealed" etc. that must be used cautiously on Wikipedia--they all indicate that the information that follows is true, and can be at odds with NPOV. You could make a case that "asserted" is in the opposite category of words that tend to cast doubt on claims--like "claimed". There may well be a better word that is more neutral on the question of whether Webb's evidence makes his case--or more likely a phrase. Nareek 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Decisive" does not mean "proved"; if we mean proved we would say proved. Documented does not mean the info is true; it means it is "documented." If we wanted to say the information was true, we would say that it is "true." I don't see how there is a POV issue here. "Assert," like "claim," is problematic because in context it implies a lack of evidence, which we agree is not the case here. Anyway I don't want to keep wasting time on this one word; can you suggest another? I want it to be clear that Webb documents his case (and, in fact, does so quite well, and his documentation has not been refuted). The problem, again, is that the people who disagree with Webb actually disagree with a claim Webb never made. This needs to be clear.--csloat 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be clear. But saying Webb "documented" it is not a good word choice. It strongly implies that the claim is true. I think the claim is true. But that's not good enough. "Webb provided documents supporting a claim that" is fine. "Web documented that" is POV. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you're splitting hairs, but I have no other objection to that change.--csloat 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Andres Kargar

Comments by Andres Kargar have been removed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, chatroom, discussion forum, propaganda, advocacy of any kind, nor critical reviews, personal essays, primary research, or memorials. Please consult the edit history. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Feel free to discuss improving this article on this page. --Viriditas | Talk 11:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments in question are second from bottom in 'history', for the record. I have copied them to Talk:David_Corn where they may help those writing that article. By the way, "What wikipedia is" is not exactly the same as what the Talk: pages are. 67.124.101.60 23:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're mistaken. See Wikipedia:Talk page. On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into another H2G2 or Everything2. --Viriditas | Talk 00:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are there any other Pulitzer prize winning journalists on this clearly bias site that don't include the fact that the person won a Pulitzer prize in their introduction? "Gary Webb was a controversial American investigative journalist" I mean come on, have a little respect. You hacks could learn something from Gary Webb.211.72.233.8 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)U. Dicks

Agreed; that info should be in the intro. csloat 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for changing that. Sorry about the negative remarks.

External links

I'm in the process of merging the external links section into inline references. If anyone wants to help, that would be great. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Daniel Pipes

I recently made an account so I could remove Daniel Pipes out of the page because I belive that he is not respectful enough to provide so much critisism. This is because he thinks Islam is counterintuitive to Democracy. I consider that someone so disrespectful should not be commenting on Gary Webbs work. I have tried repeatedly to remove it, but blueboy96 says that it is vandalism, without giving an explanation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.46.0.13 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the removal, not just because of Pipes' well-known chauvinism, but more to the point because he has no expertise whatsoever on this topic, and because his claims are all based on the three media accounts that responded to the Merc back in 1996. His quote adds nothing to the article except a bit of unnecessary invective. csloat 21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

An addition of Walter Pincus might be useful, in order to show Webb's worst mainstream opposition, and the fact that it was CIA backed. Could border on non-neutrality, but Pincus was his fiercest critic.(*I made the 1st commment)Luis Posada 05:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Worst reason possible

Establishing a Wikipedia account just so you can remove someone who you don't like or disagree with is the worst reason to open one. Who the hell are you to decide that I can't read what Mr. Pipes (whoever he may be) has to say. Such action is better suited to totalitarian governments, not a public encyclopedia. Such action goes a long way to disproving the concept of a publicly edited encyclopedia. Actions like this will be the destruction of Wikipedia, which seems more and more like it's becoming a place where only certain opinion, of a certain few people, on a particular subject are tolerated. If someone thinks Islam is counterintuitive to democracy (and many, many other people agree) why should that be reason to remove him from an article on Gary Webb? It is assasination, plain and simple. If "expertise" on a subject is to be required in the comment sections why bother having Wikipedia at all? Who is to judge "expertise"? We can get 'carved in stone' articles from any number of better places. "Could border on non-neutrality"? Is sombody kidding? Does any writer here want to honestly claim 'non-neutrality"? I hope that,atleast,you can be honest with yourselves.I wonder how long this criticism will survive. I don't have an account but my name is Doug Wargo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.155.71 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Mr. Pipes is not, to my knowledge, a Wikipedia editor; and, if he is, nobody is advocating his removal from Wikipedia. What is being advocated above is the removal of a quote from his book because it may not belong here. No "assassination" is being suggested. csloat 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I did misunderstand and I apologize. In my defence the sentence "I recently made an account so I could remove Daniel Pipes out of the page because I belive that he is not respectful enough to provide so much critisism." set me off. It was indicative of what we are seeing way too much of in Wikipedia lately and which will, I think, eventually render Wikipedia all but useless. And that is the removal of things which don't happen to coincide with someone's belief system leaving future readers to wonder what the banished person may have had to say. Whether a person is "respectful" or not is irrelevent. Judging "non-respectfulness" is itself non-neutral. I believe that no ONE person (and certainly no one unidentified person) should have the power of censorship of an article. One person should be able to propose the censoring but it should require some other person(s), independant of the first, to make it happen. Just my two cents.75.164.150.119 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Doug Wargo

how is it possible to shoot yourself twice in the head?

wouldn't you lose consciousness/die on the first shot? Why would you even need two shots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.182.168 (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

==== Someone should mention doubletapping. This is a standard police tactic to describe shooting someone twice to make sure that the person is dead or dying. Two shots to the head or torso/organs at close range and you have more than 99% chance of fatality. Shooting yourself twice in commission of a suicide is rare, not impossible, but double tapping is standard practice for shoot to kill orders.

Links to CIA Reports 'The California Story' are Out of Date

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but what the hay. In your external links section, you have links to the 'two volume' (they are not really volumes) CIA reports 'Supervision of Henhouses by Foxes, As Reported by Foxes'--No, not that one...what I mean is The California Story, the CIA follow up on Mr. Gary Webb's articles.

I had to do a few searches, but here they are:

Volume I: [6]

Volume II: [7]

Thank you for your good work on Wikipedia, and nothing I have said or done here should be even vaguely construed as a criticism.Bill Abendroth (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Bill Abendroth, billaben@teleport.com

More External links

The comments on the Kuro5hin article have many additional/related links. See R.I.P. Gary Webb -- Unembedded Reporter, in particular BACKGROUND ON THE CIA-DRUG CONNECTION - haven't gone through these though. --L

Missing references section

The background for Dark Alliance is complicated and not easy to penetrate from a quick glance. Moreover, the picture changed drastically over time (in Webbs favor). The article should therefore have a good reference section.

There still seems to be substantial confusion from the DoJ and CIA reports, which probably stems from the highly misleading executive summaries of the long documents (also see CIA Confirms It Allowed Contra Drug Trafficking). This should be mentioned in the references section, to avoid further confusion.

Also, the link collection here (also mentioned above) is worth looking into further. --Vinsci | Talk 08:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vinsci's lead vs. Viajero

Vinsci

Gary Webb (1955 – December 10, 2004) was an American investigative journalist for 19 years, focusing on government and private sector corruption and winning more than 30 journalism awards. He was best known for his 1996 "Dark Alliance" newspaper article series (later published as a book under the same title) in which he explored the Contra-crack cocaine connection. His controversial and highly damaging revelations were disputed at the time and while later confirmed, the affair effectively ended his career as a journalist.

Viajero

Gary Webb (1955 – December 10, 2004) was an American investigative journalist best known for his 1996 "Dark Alliance" series for the San Jose Mercury News in which he explored the Contra-crack cocaine connection (it was later published as a book under the same title). His controversial and highly damaging revelations were disputed at the time, and the affair effectively ended his career as a journalist.

See also: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles

[Posted by Viriditas on 27 March 2005 11:28]

Viajero's version lacks the ring of truth that should be expected in an open source capsule. The facts referenced by Vinsci were later verified nearly point by point in the evidence uncovered by commission reports, which actually revealed that the scope of the CIA's operation was much larger than the shard Webb reported on. The commission reports went out of their way to downplay their own findings. The fact that Webb was actually vindicated received little press coverage, especially when compared to the unbridled backlash against Webb that also happened to prompt the Mercury News to disown him. Most mainstream press reports after Webb's death continued in this vein, as has Viajero. Ombudsman 06:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am quite aware that Webb has been largely vindicated. Please note operative phrase at the time. I am sure it isn't necessary to spell this out for you, but it implies that people think differently now, that is to say, the revelations are now longer rejected out of hand. I think it is safe to assume our readers have the cognitive abilities to parse this statement correctly and reach this conclusion on their own. -- Viajero 08:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. --Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

Archives of articles by Gary Webb

• Sacramento News & Report article archive

• The killing game (Cover story, full issue) 14th October 2004
• and others...

• BBC News

Shortly before his death, Webb was asked by the BBC to comment on the U.S. presidential election 2004 on a 'U.S. voters panel'. This was a series of short commentaries.

• BBC Election Coverage Main page (see voter's view section)

• Webb on The Democratic convention 30th July 2004 (full panel)
• Webb on Republican convention 6th September 2004 (full panel)
• Webb on First presidential debate 1st October 2004 (full panel)
• Webb on Second presidential debate 9th October 2004 (full panel)
• Webb on The final debate 14th Ocotber 2004 (full panel)
• Webb on Final descision 29th Ocotber 2004 ((full panel)

"When the BBC asked me to be on this voter panel, I had no intention of voting. [...] Rejecting both candidates is the only honest choice in that case. [...] George Bush did all of those things, unapologetically, to this nation's everlasting disgrace. That's why I'm voting for John Kerry."

• Webb on Bush wins 5th November 2004 (full panel)

Panel comments he didn't participate in are omitted.

Book reviews

• Dark Alliance

• Glenn Garvin: Hooked on Fantasies (January 1999) Reason Magazine

Venomous critique, ridicules the author and the story while at the same time omitting supportive evidence, such as the secret CIA/DoJ agreement of 1982, North's diary entry that 14 million USD to finance arms came from drugs[8], CIA's confessions, etc. Discusses the .ni side of the story. Also mentions 1980's lawsuits that were dropped - followup.

• Compare Pro-Contra Media Coverage -- Paid for by the CIA (Project Censored, 1986)

• Uri Dowbenko: Book Review, Dark Alliance (2001) Conspiracy Digest

Written in a matter of factly manner. Interesting, many references. Followup.

Comments in media at the time

• The CIA-crack story: Anatomy of a journalistic train wreck
• Snow Job: The Establishment's Papers Do Damage Control for the CIA by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), Jan/Feb 1997.

• Article sidebar 1: That Delusional Mindset (from Internet Archive)

On blaming it on "black paranoia". Another "must read", also mentions AP (12/20/85) and CBS News (West 57th, 4/6/87, 7/11/87) stories on CIA-backed contras and cocain trade and CIA participation in opium trafficing in Southeast Asia (The Politics of Heroin, Alfred W. McCoy).

• Article sidebar 2: Our Man at the Post (from Internet Archive)

Washington Times [...] described Pincus as a journalist "who some in the agency refer to as 'the CIA's house reporter.'"

Highly interesting, comments on the media reactions to the story. Interesting quote from Post owner at the end, from a speech given at CIA headquarters: "We live in a dirty and dangerous world," Graham told agency leaders (Regardie's Magazine,1/90). "There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.".

More to come... --Vinsci 12:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classic. I added it to Katherine Graham. -- Viajero 22:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Articles mentioning Webb (from 2005 onwards)

• Newsweek’s Nightmare, by Rem Reider, American Journalism Review, April/May 2005

Note: also mentions a story on Gary Webb on p. 20: "The Sad Saga of Gary Webb". This doesn't seem to be up on the web yet.

• Susan Bell: a shameful secret history ('The Last Rebel' in print edition) , by Robert Chalmers The Independent, 9 October 2005. Interview with the widow of Gary Webb that takes an in-depth look at Webb's story and especially the wrath he endured from U.S. media outlets and Intelligence Establishment.

Current CIA and drugs connection stories

• Schou, Nick (April 29 – May 5, 2005). "Dr. Death Revisited. In French TV documentary, ex-CIA official admits ties to CIA-cocaine scandal character". OC Weekly.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

This Page Violates Wikipedia's POV Standard

Every single paragraph and source in this review assumes that all statements made by Webb supporters are true, and every single statment or judgment made by Webb detractors are false. Just look at the articles cited: Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, etc., all far-left opinion sources. All of Webb's accusations are highly controversial outside the narrow confines of the far-left,a nd should not be reported as though they were fact. This should be an encyclopedia entry, not haigography. (--preceeding unsigned comment by 209.163.206.215, aka 66.68.69.130)

That's actually incorrect. Among scholars as well as reporters, it is generally agreed that the attacks on Webb in 1996 were unjustified, and indeed the CIA's own self-study confirmed the bulk of Webb's findings (minus the sensationalism).--csloat 22:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That statement is false. Webb's results are NOT "generally agreed among scholars as well as reporters" that's Webb's allegations were true, especially given who widely debunked they were in the mainstream media of the day. The only people who give Webb's conspiracy theory any credence these days are those on the far left. (--preceeding unsigned comment by 66.68.69.130, aka 209.163.206.215)

Actually, you are wrong about that. Can you even name a single scholar or historian who has refuted the Webb stories and their implications regarding the CIA and drugs? In 1996 there were three major stories refuting the series, you are correct about that, but those stories essentially nitpicked, leaving most of the Webb series intact, and in the years since, scholars who have taken a look at all of the articles have pointed this out. Even the newspapers that came out against Webb in 1996 have since published information that supported his conclusions. The CIA itself even pubished such information in 1998! Look through the article, there are plenty of sources supporting the Webb series besides the "far left." If you want to look through even more information and decide for yourself, this site is really old, but it has links to a lot of information specific to the Webb story. Do you have a specific source of information that you woulde like to see included here that is not present? It's reasonable to put an NPOV tag on a page if you think it needs more information to fix the POV slant, but you should include specific information about what you consider a reasonable remedy for the situation so the tag is not there forever.--csloat 05:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "this site" I made archives of the front page: http://archive.is/1w0gK - http://www.webcitation.org/6MXfAKktX WhisperToMe (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of the articles mentioned that are Webb-related:

• Adams, James. "Moonlighting?" (Archive) The New York Times. September 27, 1998 - Book review of Webb's book and another book
  • First chapter of The Dark Alliance (Archive)
  • First chapter of Whiteout (Archive)
  • "Featured Subject: The Dark Alliance Expose." (Archive) - List of related NYT articles
    • Myers, Steven Lee. "Inquiries Into Report That Contra Rebels Sold Cocaine in U.S." (Archive). The New York Times. September 12, 1996.
    • Golden, Tim. "Though Evidence Is Thin, Tale of C.I.A. and Drugs Has a Life of Its Own" (Archive). The New York Times. October 21, 1996.
    • Golden, Tim. "Pivotal Figures of Newspaper Series May Be Only Bit Players" (Archive). The New York Times. October 21, 1996.
    • Purdum, Todd S. "Expose on Crack Was Flawed, Paper Says" (Archive). The New York Times. May 13, 1997.
    • "Editorial: The Mercury News Comes Clean" (Archive). The New York Times. May 14, 1997.
    • Peterson, Iver. "Repercussions From Flawed News Articles" (Archive). The New York Times. June 3, 1997.
    • Weiner, Tim. "C.I.A. Report Concludes Agency Knew Nothing of Drug Dealers' Ties to Rebels" (Archive) The New York Times. January 30, 1998.
      • Comment: Cockburn, Alexander. "Why They Hated Gary Webb." (Archive) Counterpunch. Weekend Edition December 18-20, 2004. (there is a version published in The Nation as well but I do not know if it has this quote)

        States: "December 18, 1997, stories in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus and in the New York Times by Tim Weiner appeared simultaneously, both saying the same thing: Inspector General Hitz had finished his investigation. He had found "no direct or indirect" links between the CIA and the cocaine traffickers. As both Pincus and Weiner admitted in their stories, neither of the two journalists had actually seen the report. The actual report itself, so loudly heralded, received almost no examination. But those who took the time to examine the 149-page document ­ the first of two volumes–found[...]"

• "BOOK TOUR "Dark Alliance - The CIA, The Contras and the Crack Cocaine Explosion" by Gary Webb." (Archive) High Times. June 1998.
• Gonzalez, Juan. "CRACK-CONTRA STORY WON'T DIE." (Archive) New York Daily News. June 16, 1998.
• Schou, Nick. "RAGE AGAINST THE WEBB." (Archive, Archive #2) OC Weekly. June 12, 1998.
• Schou, Nick. "Tracks in the Snow." (Archive, Archive #2)
• Weinberg, Steve. "'Dark Alliance' reinforces Gary Webb's crack expose." Baltimore Sun. June 14, 1998.

Primary source documents that are Webb-related:

• "INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 (House of Representatives - May 07, 1998) Congressional Record (07 May 1998)." (Archive, Archive #2)
  • "Remarks of Conyers." - http://archive.is/8ZZzC - http://www.webcitation.org/6MYHyeTp8
    • Inserted into Congressional Record by Conyers: "A Tangled Web: A History of CIA Complicity in International Drug Trafficking." from the Institute of Policy Studies - Congressional Record (07 May 1998) [Page: H2955] - http://archive.is/5eMVJ - http://www.webcitation.org/6MYISPTIU
  • "Remarks of Waters." - http://archive.is/S1zRL - http://www.webcitation.org/6MYI8UfZa
    • "Memorandum of Understanding" between William Casey & Attorney General, inserted into the Congressional Record by Waters. - http://archive.is/SfSsk - http://www.webcitation.org/6MYIbPHOD
  • Congressional debate:
    • HTML version - http://archive.is/SomfX - http://www.webcitation.org/6MYJ8kgDn
    • Text version - http://archive.is/KVtUn - http://www.webcitation.org/6MYJNfyHN
    • Zip file http://www.webcitation.org/6MYJQfaVb
    • GNUZip file http://www.webcitation.org/6MYJTtdTz

Other documents (these pages are possibly non-RS sources)

• Parry, Robert. "NYT’s New Contra Lies" http://archive.is/LEnc9, http://www.webcitation.org/6MYMcaDCY. The Consortium/consortiumnews.com. October 1, 1998.

Non-Webb related articles:

• Hamilton, Denise. "Truth About D.A.R.E.; The big-bucks antidrug program for kids doesn't work." (Archive) New Times Los Angeles. Thursday March 20, 1997.