Talk:Gary Webb/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 [mischaracterized as] 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)

@Nareek: and @Quadell: WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tempshill: @Apostle12: WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 7 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..." - Wikipedia: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.

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 Wikipedia community is fairly adamant against doing Wikipedia:Original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and it's supposed to report on what other people say, so it is against the purpose of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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 [mischaracterized as] 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)

@Nareek: and @Quadell: WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tempshill: @Apostle12: WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 7 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..." - Wikipedia: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.

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 Wikipedia community is fairly adamant against doing Wikipedia:Original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and it's supposed to report on what other people say, so it is against the purpose of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

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 and it 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)

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.[1] 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.[2] 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 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)

References

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^(t•c) 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 Wikipedia'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." Wikipedia 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 thanked in the foreword to Dark Alliance and is cited throughout this article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Major problems II: Bromwich report

I have gone over the article again, and I see that the DOJ report was in fact mentioned under the Michael Bromwich's name. My apologies for the oversight. Unfortunately, the article cites the report as follows: "The Bromwich report corroborated Webb's investigation into Norwin Meneses, a Nicaraguan drug smuggler." But the conclusion of the DOJ report in fact states: "We therefore expended significant resources in a lengthy and exhaustive review of the investigations and prosecution of the various individuals who were the center of the allegations in the articles -- Blandon, Meneses, Ross, Lister, and others. Our review found that the allegations in the articles were exaggerations of the actual facts." It goes on: "We found that Blandon and Meneses were plainly major drug traffickers who enriched themselves at the expense of countless drug users and the communities in which these drug users lived, just like other drug dealers of their magnitude. They also contributed some money to the Contra cause. But we did not find that their activities were the cause of the crack epidemic in Los Angeles, much less in the United States as a whole, or that they were a significant source of support for the Contras." I fail to see how this is corroboration. Bromwich rejects the major claims of Webb's series. Please clarify or correct. Rgr09 (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Restructuring suggestion

Regarding the basic article structure, I suggest that Webb's biography and the 'Dark Alliance' newspaper series could be usefully separated. One way to do this would be to put up a new article devoted to the newspaper series. Another possibility would be to cover both the series and the book in the already existing 'Dark Alliance' article. The advantage of separating would be to simplify fixing Webb's biography and also to simplify description of the series (and possibly book) content and the complicated events it produced. One problem would be that a new article would separate the current contents from their editing history. Anyone going over the article will need these to track down references and reasons for why the article has gotten into this state. Any comments on this suggestion? Rgr09 (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support restructure and moving some information to the Dark Alliance page. The Biography section needs to be a more general timeline, with some sections broken out, such as Critics.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. After I've filled in some of the blanks for sources, the biography should be more tractable. Lists go, replace with paragraphs; there seems to be enough information out there to do that. The natural thing to move to the Dark Alliance book article is the redundant section on the book in this article. Perhaps insert a see also in its place? I agree that book review(s) should move to the book article, as suggested above (somewhere). Rgr09 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to improve the article. There could be a summary on Dark Alliance with a see main article tag. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Removed miscellaneous discussion attributed to book and moved Garvin review to Dark alliance page. Put on "see main article" tag. Have not read book, so I cannot summarize (it is over 500 pages). In any case, there are numerous POV traps in such an attempt. A better approach might be to integrate the book into biography. It took up a good chunk of Webb's time after he left the Mercury News, and its failure to sell contributed to his financial problems. Nor did it help to vindicate his writing in the series. Rgr09 (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Major problems I

I agree with Rja13ww33 that there are major concerns with this article and a careful revision is called for. The claim that the accuracy of Webb's series was "vindicated" cannot be taken as a starting point of the article, yet it clearly has. This is a violation of NPOV. The quotes from the articles already cited on this very page do not support this. For example, Susan Paterno's article in American Journalism Review, is quoted above: "Though hardly a vindication of Webb, the report marked one of the most extensive internal probes the CIA had ever launched." This means that Paterno concedes the CIA report did NOT vindicate Webb's work. This contradicts Schou, who says it DID. Who is right? The original work in this case must be consulted. If it confirms Paterno, you cannot just quote Schou and conceal the fact that he is contradicted. If Schou does not accurately describe the report, he is ipso facto not a reliable source; if you claim a document says X and the document says NOT X, you are not reliable. This is a central point and must be resolved.

The CIA report was not the only report that the series gave rise to. The Department of Justice did a lengthy report in response to the series. This report is cited in the bibliography section of the article, but unmentioned anywhere else in the text of the article. In the conclusions of this report, the authors state: "We found that the allegations contained in the original Mercury News articles were exaggerations of the actual facts." It further says "We also found that the 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." These conclusions cannot be concealed simply on the basis that the DOJ report is "an original source." They must be mentioned.

Regardless of how the issue of "vindication" is resolved, the article is dramatically unbalanced in its presentation of problems with Webb's series. Going back to Paterno's article, she repeatedly acknowledges problems with Webb's series. In the lead she says "But while Webb overreached, some key findings in “Dark Alliance” were on target" Overreached is a criticism of the accuracy of his work. She quotes Peter Kornbluh at GWU's "National Security Archive", who says ""There were parts of Gary's story that needed to be corrected." Corrected means that Kornbluh believes there were parts of the series that were wrong. Both of these writers are VERY sympathetic to Webb, and both of them acknowledge that the series had errors. Yet the only mention of errors in the article is to brush off Glenn Garvin's critique of the series with the phrase: "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." This is not NPOV.

Finally, a particularly problematic part of the article is the repeated statement that Webb "was found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head, which the coroner's office judged a suicide." This is CALCULATED to induce doubt in the reader as to the accuracy of the coroner's findings. Still using Paterno's article, she has not a scrap of doubt that it was suicide and describes the suicide as follows: "He repaired to the bedroom, pulled out a revolver, and sent a bullet through his cheek. The second time he tried, he hit a major artery. 'There's no way [to know] if he died suddenly," says Ed Smith, assistant Sacramento County coroner, "or if he bled to death.'" There is nothing that I have seen in any factual account that EVER questioned that Webb killed himself, and the bizarre circumlocutions that are used in the article to convey doubt about this should be removed immediately. Rgr09 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent points. Another editor suggested I edit the article. But (as you noted) the whole thing seems to have some major issues. Rather than start some sort of edit war, I wanted to build a consensus as to the best way to proceed. And to that end, you've given some valuable input.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and thanks for your interest in the article and Wikipedia. Hope you able to contribute again, either here or elsewhere. Rgr09 (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Suicide

since when some one can commit suicide with 2 bolt to the head !? assassination would fit better on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.216.102 (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. To put things into the article, we need to have reliable sources (I forget how to put a link to the explanation). If you can find a reliable source that says Webb was assassinated, by all means put it in, but editors can't put in things just because we think they are likely or reasonable. In this case, like I said somewhere above, probably part of the reason you feel suicide is hard to believe is because the article says "two gunshot wounds to the head." This doesn't mean he shot himself in the brain twice. That may be possible, but is very, very rare, I'm sure. As I said earlier on this page though, according to the coroner who investigated, Webb shot himself first, not in the brain, but through the cheek. This wasn't enough to incapacitate him, so he was able to shoot again. I still don't completely understand how he died; the article I read says he "hit an artery", so he may not have shot himself in the brain at all. If I can find a reliable source for exactly how he died, I will change the phrase so that people aren't so confused. Rgr09 (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is the example Rgr09 gives, the first shot not being fatal. Also some automatic firearms could be triggered twice. Wikipedia use 'reliable' source see WP:RELIABLE. Frustratingly, these can trump the truth, if there is no source to back up the truth - however also note WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Webb and the SJMN Pulitzer

I have now added info on Webb's role in the SJMN pulitzer prize. This topic has appeared on the article talk page before. One thing that must be very clear is that Webb did not win this award himself. It was awarded to the staff of the SJMN. Everyone who has written on Webb's career acknowledges that Webb's work played a role in the award, mostly citing the article I mentioned in the text on the Cypress Viaduct collapse, which Webb wrote with Pete Carey. Still, it is not acceptable to make this WEBB's Pulitzer, this would be inaccurate. and wildly unfair to the rest of the 1989 SJMN staff. I have left the award in the infobox, but added (staff) under it to try and maintain some fairness. But this is not really balanced writing; other journalists who were on papers which won Pulitzer staff awards do NOT have the Pulitzer listed in the infobox. One prominent example is Bob Woodward, who was lead reporter on the Washington Post's coverage of 9/11. The Post staff won the National Reporting Pulitzer for their coverage, and Woodward's role in mentioned in the article, but his infobox does not list a Pulitzer award. In fact, if Woodward were to list a Pulitzer for each staff award the Post has received since he got there, he would have at least three. Why should Webb be treated differently from Woodward? Any discussion would be appreciated. Please discuss first before any changes! Rgr09 (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

References and external links

This is yet another messy part of the article. Numerous attempts to clean it up in the past, none very successful. Since there are a tremendous number of duplicate references in the article, I suggest anyone interested in cleaning up here first try to make a real reference list (a list of works cited in the article), go through that for duplicate references in the text, THEN go through the "references" at the end, which include notes, bibliography, further reading, and "external links," which include an unlabeled section, a section labeled 'Commentaries' (a large collection of tributes to Webb written after his death in 2004), and a single entry 'Bibliography'. Please try not to remove anything not duplicated. After we see what's left, it will be easier to discuss any problems there might be. Rgr09 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally added links to CIA IG report, vols 1 and 2. This was a gigantic hole in the article. The reference material sections are now renamed and rearranged: Endnotes for the reflist, References for works cited in the references, and Further Reading for (mostly) print works that are not cited. External links are now divided into sections, with a couple of duplicates from references and furhter reading removed. Wonder how long this arrangement will last? Rgr09 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Final section renamed, revised

I changed the name of the final section of the article from "Posthumous reputation" to "Movie and continuing debate", based on the content of the section. I removed most of the movie information and instead sourced the article on the movie. I took the "Democracy Now" link from the External links section and moved it here, since this is also the subject of the link. Most of the current discussion of Webb and "Dark Alliance" has been spurred by the movie; this section is a good place to put that. Hopefully it will be expanded in the near future. Two suggestions on this: first, movie reviews, information, and trivia should go to the movie article, not here. I'm not optimistic about this, but that's the way I will edit, and I think it's reasonable. Second, the debate about Webb and his work must be presented NPOV, and should include criticism as well as praise. My edit is based on this. The section quotes Scott Herhold, Webb's first editor at Mercury News. His comments are relevant and well sourced and should not be taken out. After the Herhold quote the section originally added a long sentence intended to show that Herhold's comment were biased, based on some things in Herhold's column. This is not NPOV, it is the editor's opinion. If a quote or other information is acceptable content, editors do not add their own views on this, they do not add buts or howevers, they cite reliable sources who give whatever view or interpretation. The section then followed this with a quote from Susan Paterno's article on Webb, in which she said that Webb's editors on the series refused to talk to her. But Herhold was not an editor of the series, he worked with Webb in Webb's first year at Mercury News in 1988, and he did talk to Paterno and is quoted in her article. I therefore removed the Paterno reference from this section. I feel the handling of the Herhold quote was very much POV, even misleading, and I will edit such things out. Rgr09 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Major problems III: Biography

In addition to the problems noted above, there are many places where Webb's biographical data is either completely unsourced or inadequately sourced. Since changes here are, perhaps, less likely to be controversial, I'll try to do this first. I will note all changes on the talk page to make sure my reasons are clear, and to get feedback from interested editors. Biographical information is in four sections: early life, notable stories, awards, and aftermath and death.

Early life: one source, but it only provides information for the last two sentences. The rest of the paragraph is unsourced.

Removed old unsourced version and replaced with sourced version, based mostly on Schou 2006, with some information from Paterno 2005. Schou is mostly anecdotal, but overall gives the most detail for the early part of Webb's life and is based on interviews with Webb's family. More information still needed to make Webb's career comprehensible, coming soon (still reading Schou's book). The article definitely has structural problems, any changes I make I will explain below. Rgr09 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Added more information on Webb's career in Ohio with very short paragraphs for each paper he worked on, sighting stories or series, based on awards he won for them, or notable reactions they produced Most of the awards mentioned on his resume from Ohio are untraceable at this point. Found the IRE award link again. SDX is Sigma Delta Chi, an award for outstanding writing from the Society of Professional Journalists; Webb won a number, but they were all regional, not national, hence very hard to track down and connect with stories; if anyone can find them put them in or send me a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgr09 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Notable stories: This is the beginning of a long list of Webb's writing. There is no source for any of this, except the last piece. I also don't understand on what basis these have been picked out of Webb's work and called 'notable stories.' Such long lists of stories, almost completely without discussion, do not usually appear in biographies of journalists on Wikipedia (that I have seen).

This list seems to be just the contents of Webb 2011, with 'Dark Alliance' added in. There is no reason just to drop the TOC of Webb 2011 into the middle of the article. I removed it, but for stories such as the Loma Prieta coverage, which was very important for Webb's career and probably helped the Mercury News win the Pulitzer, I will add back into the article with adequate sourcing for their content and importance. I have already done this for the "Coal Connection" series, which won Webb his first professional journalism awards. If you have any concerns about this, please discuss here! Rgr09 (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Awards: This is a long list of journalism awards with no sources except for two: one is an "IRE" award from 1980; the link to this is dead. The article also claims the Pulitzer Prize in 1990. This was actually a staff award, a point I don't think is made very clear in the text. This long list is followed by "literary" (awards?) and "college journalism" (!). A source is needed for all of this; I question the notability of most of it.

Finally tracked this down. This is Webb's resume, which was posted at NarcoNews in Oct. 2005. It was then copied into the article by an unregistered user in December 2005, and has sat there ever since. It is not acceptable to post resumes to Wikipedia, even in a good cause; removed most of it, but left a few major items. When the article has an adequate description of Webb's career, this can probably go as well. Webb had a remarkable career in journalism and the article does not do him justice in this respect, but posting his raw resume is not only unacceptable Wikipedia practice, it does not redress this major problem. Rgr09 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath and death: some of this is sourced, but there are problems. For example, the description of Webb's jobs after leaving the Mercury News is sourced to "The Ultimate Gary Webb - American History Information Guide and Reference." This is a dead link, but it can be found on the Wayback Machine. Unfortunately, this turns out to be one of those circular references: the article in question is clearly marked as coming from Wikipedia! There is also a whole paragraph that is totally unsourced. Rgr09 (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath and death 1: Removed dead link to circular reference, found and added two archived sources for some of the statements in this section. Text changes include: Webb was not a member of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee; the Committee consists of Assembly Members. Webb lost his position in the Speaker's Office in Feb 2004 when Nunez became speaker, not 2003. One source described Webb as being "ousted" which I don't understand, the other described him as "laid off" which I followed. I found no basis for claiming that the rest of the Speaker's staff was also laid off "as part of a house-cleaning." Rgr09 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath and death 2: Changed section title to Later career and death. Complete rewrite of the description of Webb's death. I have followed the Sacramento Bee article cited here VERY closely. but I don't think there is a problem, having cited it three times after each major bit of information and avoided wording it uses. The quotes from the coroner and Webb's wife are fair content and need to be in the article. The article is a reliable source for the existence of "rumors" about Webb's death, so that is finally mentioned, but as it should be: a rumor. I am sure that we will continue to have problems with this part of the article. I have left in "two gunshots to the head" even though I feel this is misleading, as I noted below. I am still thinking about removing the phrase from the beginning of the article, because it is missing all the important context here. I suspect that some of the drive-by editing on this article is done by people who see that and don't even bother to look down here. Rgr09 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

infobox: revised infobox based on revisions to early life section. Rgr09 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

More on Webb's death

My apologies, I reversed the meaning of an edit by omitting the word "not" and then had Webb's wife commit suicide instead of Webb. I will take a week long break from editing. I did find a long article by Tina Daunt in the LA Times that gave details from the coroner's report. I put in a link to the story and summarized it, this time correctly I hope. It seems clear that although Webb shot himself twice, neither shot hit the brain. Rgr09 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of "Dark Alliance"

What DID critics say? Two sentences is just ridiculous, guaranteed this has to change. The first thing I will do, today, is add whatever links I can find to the New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times stories on the series. Rgr09 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Added links and description for the New York Times articles. I will add in Washington Post and Los Angeles Times coverage in the next day or two. I will also add a description for Peter Kornbluh's article in Columbia Journalism Review. This is actually quoted in the article, without any acknowledgement that it is every bit as skeptical as the NYT articles. Unfortunately, the link given in the article is dead. I will see if I can find a live link. Rgr09 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have Katz's article (LA Times) saved in case you cannot locate it. For a good summary of the CIA investigation into these allegations, I'd look at the Frontline link I gave elsewhere on this page. Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean "Seeing the Gray in Dark Alliance"? Got that one, thanks, are there any others by Katz? Right now looking for any remnants of the LA Times/Washington Post 1996 coverage. The NY Times has collection of articles on dark alliance still up, still have more to read there, but I want to read the other two papers as well, they seem to have been substantially more negative than NYT. Schou 2006 has some of their coverage, but alas my library copy of Schou has been recalled. Best to read originals first anyway, helps you understand what people bring to their summaries or interpretations; why I think it's important to reference them in the article. Seen Frontline website, very readable, but in the end is still just a summary. Both volumes of the CIA IG report are up at the cia site, surprisingly there is no link to these in the article. I will put links up tomorrow. Rgr09 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Katz article I refer to was the 10/20/1996 article 'Tracking the Genesis of the Crack Trade' by Katz, et al. It's a pretty good source to understand how the cocaine/crack market in LA developed. And he names some of Ross's contemporaries. Katz took heat for saying it was several different dealers when (some time before Dark Alliance broke) he had written a story previously that made Ross sound like the king of crack in LA. But other investigations (including the DOJ's) backed the notion that it was a number of dealers (several in business before Ross was involved in dealing) that actually opened the first pipelines between Columbia and LA. I know original research isn't allowed, but (using a on-line newspaper archive I have a subscription to) I found articles from 1979 where cocaine is reported to be all over LA county. (From the lower to the upper classes.) Which is well before Ross got mixed up in dealing (right around 1981-1982) or Blandon began supplying him (around late 1983).Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So this Katz article was part of the much maligned LA Times investigation of "Dark Alliance" claims. Yes, I'm interested in looking at it, but what I'm really interested in is finding links to the LA Times coverage online. There used to be an archive at this location but it is long gone, and is not to be found in either Wayback or Archive.Today or Webcitation. Any help locating public access to these articles would be great, but I gather you got it from a subscription source. Rgr09 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This should be available to everyone. (As I don't have a direct subscription to the LA Times. Just a general newspaper archive that accesses many different papers.) Try it: [3]Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, found it. I'll write it up and add it next week, after my time-out ends. I've looked through the collection keywords, now that you've shown me the way; oddly, despite the many garys that appear there, gary webb does not, nor does dark alliance. Rgr09 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which link you refer to, but it worth trying the Wayback Machine if you haven't already. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned what I'm looking for right above. Tried archive.org but of course major newspaper websites all block it via robot.txt. Still have a few more places to check out. Strongly prefer a regular, long term archive for reliability. Any suggestions? Rgr09 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the URL of the dead link/links?Jonpatterns (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I just put a link for the LA Times coverage above, and the places I looked. Rgr09 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems with section on Investigations in response to the series

The content of this section was originally titled Investigation timeline. I found that confusing and renamed it, based on its content. This section is very problematic. I originally thought it was completely unsourced. But based on the lead sentence, which says "Investigative journalist Robert Parry credits Webb for being responsible for the following government investigations," I now understand that the section's ENTIRE content must be based on something Parry wrote. You cannot source things in such a loose way, it leads to major misunderstandings. This section has provoked most of the complaints about this article being biased or POV, and should long ago have been carefully sourced. I will take a hard look at this over the next week or so. I should make clear that I do not intend to remove adequately sourced content from Parry. I know that Parry has written a book on US government involvement in the cocaine trade, was previously an AP reporter, and now has his own website. That's all I know about him, but subject to Wikipedia rules on reliability and notability, Parry's views on Webb and his series are fair content for inclusion in the article. Moreover, I don't think it is appropriate to argue against Parry's opinions in the article, either directly, indirectly (inserting things like "Parry fails to mention ...") or through denigrating him. But his views do have to accurately represented, and they cannot serve as the sole source for the findings of the Department of Justice and CIA investigations into the claims of Webb's "Dark Alliance" series. As I said above, if Parry is contradicted by others, it needs to be handled, not ignored. Rgr09 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, the biggest problem with this section is what it says these reports say. To read it you would assume that what Webb asserted panned out. And anyone who has read those reports knows that isn't the case. (That's why I gave a link to that Frontline piece elsewhere because it gives a good summary of the CIA report.) Another issue here is with at least one of the sources. According to this section, volume 2 of the Hitz 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 sources by the way)).Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. You are concerned the section gets the facts wrong. I am most concerned that the sources of the section are made clear. Like the editors above, I have to caution you against writing your own rebuttals into the article. Without knowing who the source is and why he said those things and whether the section summarizes his views accurately, how can you do this, anyway? Don't bother. If I can't find sources for any of the content in the section, I'll delete the whole thing, put up a note here, and wait for comments. By the way, I found much of the LA Times reporting sparked by 'Dark Alliance' at the link you gave above, many thanks. That is also a source for the article; it should be mentioned, linked, and summarized. Rgr09 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. And I haven't edited the article at all (aside from putting the NPOV tag on it some months back).Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Biography 2

I have added more information on Webb's writing after he left the Mercury news, based on Schou and other profiles. I'm still looking for more information on the Awards section; I will incorporate what I find into the text and delete the award list. I revised the description of Webb's death; I now think it is acceptable, but I will review again later. Rgr09 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

References and external links 2

Fixed up miscellaneous references, trimmed references section to remove articles cited in the endnote section. There seems no point to repeating these down here. Removed external links to "works by Webb", the library of congress link was just the lccn authority number, already given under the viaf, and there's nothing under the IMDB that's not already here in the article. The external links section is now a bookmark section for a large number of miscellaneous internet sources on Webb, or for stuff that people were too lazy to integrate into the article. I will starting trying to integrate some of these into the article. In particular representative or notable tributes should go into the article, perhaps in the lengthy and amorphous section on support for Webb's reporting, and the remainder deleted. Comments? Rgr09 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Restructuring 3

Removed award list. There was not much I could do with the journalism awards. The Pulitzer is covered in the text. I could find nothing about the NAACP award on the internet or in Schou 2006. It seems that Webb did not win the 1996 Aronson award. Found no source for the media hero award, and I would question its notability even if there were. The Bay Area SPJ award is another of these regional journalism prizes that are so hard to track down; I left it in and will double check Schou. For the literary awards, the two for Dark Alliance are over in that article. I could not find sources online for the Rouse award for press criticism, and without seeing that I'm not willing to put this up now. If I find a source and it names the editor and not Webb, it should not stay.

Now that the last list is gone, I've restructured the article, lowering everything by a level, changing a couple of section names, making a couple of new sub-levels for the Dark Alliance series section. That section still has major problems and needs revision and expansion, but there's a limit to that as well; if it gets TOO much bigger, one might consider making it a separate article. Under the new structure, this should now be easier. The problems with the large and amorphous "Views on Webb's reporting" are now clearer to me. Are these views of specific issues in the series, or overall evaluations of Webb the reporter? There is lots of repetition in this section, and very little connection from paragraph to paragraph. This also needs work. Rgr09 (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Restructuring: basis and plans

I have done a major restructuring to the article. Please note that, except for one or two places where sentences had to be rewritten to match the new structure, I have not removed or rewritten anything. I would appreciate any and all comments/revisions to the changes. If you want to revert, for sure discuss it here first to avoid confusion and unnecessary appeals to various Wikipedia bodies. I feel the restructuring was very necessary. The major points in the article are now all each in separate sections and in a logical order. I am especially interested whether others think the section titles or section order have problems. If you think there are better ways of structuring the article, please explain.

One final point: I think the fundamental lack of balance in this article is now stark. The space devoted to the criticisms of the Dark Alliance series amounts to 2 sentences, less than 60 words. Webb's response get over 700 words and his supporters get over 1000 words. Wikipedia is full of unbalanced articles, but this is certainly one of the more obvious cases. Unbalanced does not mean that everyone has to get the same amount of words. It means that criticism of Webb's work is inadequately described, so that even his supporters' defense is incomprehensible in some cases. Rgr09 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dark Alliance series section: synopsis

Ready to look at the series section now. Added a couple of introductory sentences and reference to the wayback archive; eventually should be able to eliminate links to this and other material from external links. At this point, the series is very under-described. There should be at least one or two sentences for each of the main articles in the series, and for sure Ross, Blandon, and Meneses need to be identified. Right now they pop up randomly in the investigation result section, "see also" section, and "further reading section without any context whatsoever. Rgr09 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Series synopsis 2

I put in a new synopsis of the series after reading it a few times, and looking at the Schou bio, investigation findings, and follow up coverage on the archived Mercury website. I use quotes from the lead, which I think gives a better feeling of what and how Webb wrote. The original summary had some of the problems I noted above. It tried to defend the series by appealing to the book (which is now in another article), it attempted to rebut criticism of the series (that it claimed the CIA directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras) without citing the criticism, and it omitted one of the most controversial parts of the series, the claim that the Meneses-Blandon-Ross triangle played a major role in the expansion of crack cocaine use in L.A. and nationally. Rgr09 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Series synopsis 3

Finished synopsis of the series. In addition to the three main articles, there were five shorter articles, published as sidebars in the newspaper version, according to Schou's bio. I didn't do anything with these and unless the series is to be separated out in its own article, I don't think these should go in. There is a lot of complex detail in there; Webb's book based on the series was over 500 pages.

Now that there is a more complete synopsis, it is finally possible to write clearly about the initial response to the series. There is easily available material for this; as before, I take Schou's biography as a primary basis. The archived website also has an extensive collection of stories on this, both from the Mercury News and other papers. Initial response should include Webb's follow up stories that led to the LASD investigation, but right now the follow up coverage by the NYT, WP, and LAT, is in a later section. Rgr09 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Initial response section and investigation conclusions

The initial response section now covers the origins of the investigations sparked by DA. There is more to write, but for now I am skipping to the section on investigations in response to the series. The original content of this section failed to clearly explain how the investigations were started or who conducted them, and omitted the SPCI investigation, which is why I revised the initial response section to do so. This section is still needed to explain the investigations' conclusions, so I will revise for that purpose.

As I said before, there are problems with the current content of this section. I have now found the source for most of it. It is based on an article on Robert Parry's website: America's Debt to Journalist Gary Webb. This article is neither a timeline of the investigations nor a summary of their conclusions. It is a sketch of some of Parry's views, and probably comes from his book on the Contra-cocaine controversy, "Lost History." Parry is critical of the investigations' conclusions and much of his article is actually a rebuttal of them. This is not made clear in the current section, which incorrectly attributes several of Parry's rebuttals to the investigations themselves (!). I will revise based on what the investigation reports actually said, either in summary or through short quotes.

The investigation conclusions were not universally praised or accepted; they were criticized by a number of people, such as Maxine Waters. It is quite reasonable to put in sourced descriptions of some of this criticism, subject to Wikipedia standards of notability and reliability, but it shouldn't be attributed to the reports themselves. Rgr09 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

investigation conclusions 2

Added chronology of investigation results and revised version of Bromwich findings. Will finish this section then take a break. Would appreciate any comments from those who have weighed in before (@Rja13ww33: @Jonpatterns:) or others interested in the article. Rgr09 (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The section looks good. Could probably use more on what the CIA's IG report concluded.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, check the release date of one of the reports (I think it should be 1997 not 1977)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)