Jump to content

Talk:Barry Seal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.50.13.23 (talk) at 19:39, 20 May 2006 (→‎Brief history of dispute on this page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Too many problems to count

There are too many problems with the article to mention, so I will hit on the main points. Firstly, larger portions of the article are cut and paste from the �High Times� article, and as such a violation of copyright. Secondly, �High Times� does not conform to WP:V or WP:CITE guidelines, so an article comprised almost entirely of information from it does not conform to these guidelines either. Next we have the issue with the picture. Not sure where it comes from, the pictures file states that it was donated by Seal�s wife, but once again there is no verification of this. As such, I am reverting the article back to the state I had left it in. Discuss changes here and add material slowly so it can be properly vetted. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


TDC: Please do not revert or this will quickly go to Admin

(Copied from discussion comments at Felix Rodriguez for ease of future revisions: TDC: welcome to the scholarly study of US relations with Latin America. Your Wikipedia web-page clearly states your political biases: you are a self-proclaimed "defender of capitalism against the 'Neo-Coms' ('neo-Communists')." "William Blum, Howard Zinn, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, and [Noam] Chomsky sound exactly like Osama bin Laden." "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." Your first words on your page are: "Wise words to bear in mind before picking a fight with The TDC'ster." You are welcome to these opinions. Wikipedia articles, however, require a NPOV. You are welcome to offer countervailing facts and sources to those on an existing page. You are are not welcome, however, to randomly delete well-documented and highly relevant material that happens to run against your views. You have done this repeatedly, and a complain will soon be lodged against you. I suggest you work with Wikipedia guidelines, which will help create more informative and balanced web pages. Your contributions are welcome! But please do not delete the hard work of others just because you disagree with them politically. Stick to adding factual material and sources.)

(1) You write: "larger portions of the article are cut and paste from the High Times article, and as such a violation of copyright." Nonsense. Please do not use specious arguments to support your political biases. Stick to historical facts. Nothing in this article comes remotely close to copyright violation. The HT article is clearly referenced and cited, and there are many other sources. (If you see a section that is "cut and pasted" then put it in quotes and cite the HT article. Do not simply delete whole sections of the article that challenge your political views. If there are particular facts you dispute, then flag those and raise them in discussion, and we can go over them. A blanket revert does no-one any good. (2) There is considerable discussion within Wikipedia as to what constitutes a reliable source WP:RS. Agreed, High Times is not the first choice of scholarly sources; although it does have verifiable evidence. This article, however, clearly contains "multiple independent sources," including many original archival documents (which you have deleted, for no reason). (3) The picture: "there is no verification of this" -- really, TDC, this is being excessively contentious, and it seems likely you are using this to further your political agenda and not to seek a NPOV historical truth. As such, your broad deletions constitute Vandalism (Blanking); it goes way beyond bold edits. 208.59.121.177 00:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research needed

please see Talk on TDC, and please engage in Discussion

Agreed this should NOT have a {category} of Kennedy Assassination -- didn't see that before, thanks for removing it. (Conspiracy buffs: take any unsubstantiated theories elsewhere.) And agreed it is vital to stick to the facts and NPOV. Article reverted, per ongoing conflict and attempts at discussion with TDC. MONGO, you understand your responsibilities as an Admin and you understand that Blanking Vandalism is not constructive. You also understand that not every single sentence or fact in an encyclopedia must be sourced, and that a pattern of mis-using Wiki guidelines (including NPOV, V, CITE, etc.) as a veiled attempt at partisanship or ideology is itself unacceptable behavior. Please identify which facts, if any, you believe need citations with the [citation needed] template. Please also identify any particular examples of alleged "POV" and they will be fixed. The vast majority if not all of what you removed is sourced and NPOV. Your blind support for TDC (three times now) calls into question your neutrality as an Admin.

Reference for other Admins: for background, please see User talk:TDC, and discussion above and on Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency). Please note that this week TDC has already violated the terms of his parole for similar behavior. Please also note that twice before TDC has turned to Admin MONGO after engaging in revert wars and other unWikipedian behavior (on "Depleted uranium" and "What's the matter"/"Protect"), and (as far as I can tell) both times MONGO has been overruled.
Daniel Hopsicker is a crackpot tinfoil type, the inclusion of his material does not conform to WP:RS. The picture has absolutely zero verification.
Relevand portions od WP:RS are as follows:
Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. This page is an attempt to provide guidance about how to identify these. The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.
* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
* Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
* Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
* Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
I will not tell you this again, and stop leaving messages on my talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TDC: Thank you for beginning to engage in discussion (your imperative tense notwithstanding). As a collaborative effort, Wikipedia is an ongoing conversation. As the Barry Seal article states, not everything Hopsicker writes is credible, notably his Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theories (which are shunned here -- we could add a sentence to this effect, but even that would seem to give it more attention than it deserves), although not everyone shares your POV that he "is a crackpot tinfoil type." Hence this article draws on many sources. However, the photograph in question (Mexico 1963), is beyond dispute: it was personally provided by Barry Seal's widow, with the date and location on the back. Not only Hopsicker, but also (independently) John Caylor confirm this. The photo is an important historical document and deserves to be featured here. Besides being published in Hopsicker's book (on the front cover, no less), the photo and IDs in it are also featured on other encyclopedias, e.g. the UK's Spartacus Educational. The rest of the Barry Seal article draws on a wide variety of reliable published sources. Some of these are cited, some are listed in the References section, others can be added if there are particular facts you feel need a citation.[citation needed] Again, thank you for starting to engage in discussion. Responding to the particular passages you cite from WP:RS:
  • The events of 45 years ago in Cuba are hardly "recent events," and the wide availability of scholarship and archival documents published on this period make these events unsurprising to anyone who has studied it. E.g., see the excellent GSU National Security Archives and the Watson Institute 40th anniversary conference on the Bay of Pigs, for that period.
  • Some of these facts are not "widely known" to the non-specialist, precisely because they were classified for many years. However, most academic scholars and journalists of Latin America (and US-Latin relations) agree on the facts, whether or not they agree on the interpretation of them.
  • The same is true of the Iran-Contra scandal (and Felix Rodriguez (CIA)) -- it took some time for the truth to emerge about these events, including via investigative journalism and the Walsh Report investigation, and many non-specialist Americans (and others) are still surprised by the facts of that event. You may be discomfitted by those facts, but this does not change their reality. Unglesby and Dalton, attorneys on opposing sides in the trial of Seal's assassins, agreed on the facts reported here. Additional citations can be provided here, if needed. (E.g., from the Walsh Report.)
  • The events of Barry Seal's life as described are not "out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended." We might agree it is tragic that such a brilliant pilot ended up with several convictions for drug smuggling, and met an untimely end. His criminal activities are a matter of public record, as documented in many court transcripts. Although Seal "previously defended" various account of his life, his own words are at times subject to doubt, as revealed in court transcripts.
  • It is not clear just which facts or aspects of the article you are objecting to, other than the photograph of Seal in 1963. If your focus is on the photograph, then discussion of it should go to the photo's Discussion page, to help users who draw on that photo for other pages.
  • In a good-faith effort to help resolve this conflict, the Iran-Contra/Bush section (which drew on a 1997 article by Hopsicker) was cut, and brief mention from it (Dalton/Unglesby) made in the "Informant, Nicaragua" section.

The Picture

One at a time then, The picture; where is the verification that this photo is what it claims to be. John Caylor is self published with no credentials outside of his website, where he has made the claim, amongst others that a CIA hit team is out to get Wayne Madsen. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use sources from non news or non academic websites. So no Geocities and the like. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating the reliability of a source depends in part on the nature of the claims they are making. Factual claims ("I met with Debbie Seal") are more likely to be reliable than conjectures ("The CIA is after Wayne Madssen"), in part because they can be easily confirmed/disconfirmed (by reasonable standards -- e.g., by asking Debbie Seal: "Did John Caylor meet with you?"). Even if Caylor wrote that he believes in four-headed Martians, it would not cast doubt on his meeting Debbie Seal.
According to the former producer for the TV show Wall Street Week for PBS, who was also an executive producer of the NBC show Global Business, and an investigative reporter for NBC News, this photo is of Barry Seal, and was identified as such (and shown to him) by Barry Seal's widow. The photo is on the cover of a book by Daniel Hopsicker, published in September 2001, Barry and the Boy, and the way he obtained it is described in the book and on his website. (Note that the book cover could also be used instead, as it is also in the public domain as promotional material. However, given that it includes the very same photograph, simply smaller hence less visible, this would be a disservice to Wikipedians.) Let's see if we disagree on any of this, and move forward. I think any reasonable observer will agree up to at least point 14 in the following list, and probably point 15 as well. I have emailed Hopsicker at his website to get his input; I do not know him and have no idea if he will respond here. Let me know if you think any of the following needs a citation, and if so at what point:

1. There is a person named Daniel Hopsicker. 2. He was a producer for the TV show Wall Street Week for PBS, he was the former executive producer of the NBC show Global Business, he was an investigative reporter for NBC News, and he is the author of book: Barry and the Boys. 3. There is a person named Deborah ('Debbie') Seal. 4. Debbie Seal is the widow of Barry Seal, and the mother of his children. 5. Hopsicker writes that he met with this Debbie Seal. 6. It is reasonable to conclude that Hopsicker did meet with this Debbie Seal. 7. Hopsicker writes that Debbie showed him a photograph. 8. It is reasonable to conclude that Debbie did show him a photograph. 9. The photograph she showed him is the one in question, as Hopsicker writes in his book and on his website. 10. Hopsicker reports that the photograph is marked with the name of a nightclub (La Reforma) in Mexico City, and stamped with a date, January 22, 1963. 11. It is reasonable to conclude that the photograph is marked with the name and date, as Hopsicker reports. And that the name and date refer to this photograph. 12. Hopsicker reports that Debbie told him this photograph depicts Barry Seal, among others. 13. It is reasonable to conclude that Debbie did tell Hopsicker that this photograph depicts Barry Seal, among others. 14. Debbie believes this herself, with good reasons, and in good faith. (E.g., she likely recognizes her husband, he told her it was him, etc.) 15. As stated by Barry Seal’s wife (and mother of his children), the photograph does depict Barry Seal, among others.

There are other sources for this photo, but this is a start. I look forward to working with you in improving the Barry Seal page. Thank you for your participation in the Discussion. 208.59.121.177 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief history of dispute on this page

For future ease of reference by Arb Cttee.

5 December 2005: First mention of Dalton and Unglesby, by user Nfgii. Also mentions connection to Bush Sr. Also notes that Seal's plane later was used by Bush Jr. These points seem largely accepted by users IP 83.76.85.156, Bluemoose, Cmdrjameson, 69.150.58.188, CmdrObot, Gamaliel, LoganCale, and JoeBot. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Seal&oldid=30210677

10 May 2006: By user IP 141.161.48.111. Section headings added. Photo of Barry Seal (and others) from 1963 added. Users Gamaliel, SamanthaForrester, IP 208.59.121.177, and Nloth, continue to contribute to article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Seal&oldid=52545902

15 May 2006: Major blanking by TDC, who alleges "most of this is ridiculous rumor mongering", without engaging in discussion. (Note that this wipes out much of five months of unchallenged work.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Seal&oldid=53375520

17 May 2006: Re-revert by SammanthaForrester. Continued improvements by 208.59.121.177. Revert war with TDC escalates, initially with no discussion by TDC, until { test } template is employed on his Talk page. TDC violates conditions of his parole (as noted in User talk: TDC).

19 May 2006: TDC turns to Admin MONGO, who (as noted in User talk: TDC) twice before has unsuccessfully tried to defend TDCs behavior amid widespread complaints, and does so again here. This calls into question MONGO's neutrality (a defining responsibility of Administrators). MONGO reverts to TDC's version with no discussion, evidently based on TDC's word, leaving only the Edit Summary: "lots of mostly unsourced POV removed...kennedy assassination? surely." IP-208.59.121.177 posts on Talk, requests discussion, agrees that JFK category should not be there, removes it, reverts to version accepted by users Gamaliel, SamanthaForrester, Nloth, and 208.59.121.177 (including earlier work by IP 83.76.85.156, Bluemoose, Cmdrjameson, 69.150.58.188, CmdrObot, Gamaliel, LoganCale, and JoeBot). At 7:49pm, TDC helpfully replies on the Discussion page, showing signs that he is willing to negotiate and improve the article jointly. He adds to this at 8:01pm. This could lead to productive dialogue. At 8:13pm, TDC inserts a {TotallyDisputed} template (which is fine). Six minutes later, at 8:19pm, without giving any time for response, "Admin" MONGO once again reverts to TDC's much earlier version, which ignores virtually all prior work, again with no discussion or negotiation, and only the Edit Summary: "I have a tendency to revert anonymous IP accounts when they do major overhauls to articles such as this." (Note to MONGO: "IP addresses: Visitors who haven't 'signed in' can still do most things, including the most important: editing articles".)

Given that TDC initiated the dispute, and given his indication to work on improving the page ("One at a time then"), the page is being reverted to TDC's last edit, undoing MONGO's revert. Responses to TDC on "The Picture" will be made above, in due course. Others are inivited to chime in. 208.59.121.177 02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need a lesson in civility which is policy here. Argue about the message, not the messenger. I have done nothing wrong as I demand proper, unbiased references if you are going to add potentially libelous content...it is as simple as that. Honestly, if you want your edits to be taken seriously when working on articles such as this and adding or reverting items as you have, you will be viewed with less suspicion if you create and use only one username.--MONGO 03:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You need a lesson...", "I demand...", "if you want your edits to be taken seriously...", "you will be viewed with less [sic] suspicion..." Hrm. Yup, WP:CIVIL is a useful page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barry_Seal&oldid=54234979"