Talk:Gary Webb/Archive 4

Restructuring 4
I've done a final restructuring of the article, so that it is now mostly chronological. There were several longer paragraphs I took out, if there are questions/comments about these, post here. Rgr09 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

section on views of Webb's reporting
This section is an amorphous heap of quotes about Webb without any connections or order, frequently redundant and/or indirect. Geneva Overholser's criticism of the Washington Post coverage originally appeared 4 times, all of them indirect quotes. Redundant quotes are frequent in Wikipedia, but not like this; really odd. I've deleted three of them, and when I've got a reference to the original, I will cite directly from that and delete the remaining indirect quote. I question the relevance and notability of Richard Thieme as a source on Webb's writing. If I don't hear anything on this, I will delete as well. Rgr09 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

New lead paragraph
I have revised the lead paragraph for the article, adding and subtracting from the previous content. I added a thumbnail description of Webb's career. I think this is particularly important, since previous versions of this article have slighted Webb's career as an investigative reporter and focused on the Dark Alliance controversy. I disagree with this; the article is a biography for Webb, not an article on "Dark Alliance". As I suggested before, if the "Dark Alliance" section becomes too long, it may be more appropriate to move it to another article. This has already been done for the Dark Alliance book.

I also shortened the description of the "Dark Alliance" series; the original description in the lead was long and detailed, but now that there is a description of the series further down in the article, this is no longer necessary. I also added the outraged African-American response to the series and fact that the series led to four local and national investigations. These were two important reasons that the series was notable and help to explain its importance in Webb's career. I'd be interested in any comments on the revisions. Rgr09 (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox 2
With a new lead paragraph, I've also edited the infobox. Now that the article gives adequate coverage to Webb's contribution to the Mercury News Pulitzer award, I've removed the Pulitzer award from the box. For an explanation of why, see my comments above. I also removed the two smaller papers that Webb worked for; there is no reason to put his entire work resume here. I also changed his occupation description to investigative reporter, since this was his main occupation and claim to notability. Rgr09 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduction revisions
I further revised the article introduction to reflect the changes made to the main body and to fix problems mentioned above. I moved most of the information in the original introduction to the "Views of Webb's reporting section." Since this section is basically a miscellany, it is impossible to say where it should go; I put it near the beginning of the section, for no special reason.

This is my last attempt at revising the article for the near future. Coverage by other papers is not done, the report conclusions are not done, and I'm especially sorry to leave the views section in such a mess. But life is short and I've spent far more time than I intended on this. I will check in periodically to see if there are any comments on the revisions. Rgr09 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

added section on mercury news response to criticism
This section was needed to illustrate the many attempts the SJMN made to defend the series, and the responses they met. I finally got the original Overholser article and deleted the indirect quote from later in the article as I said I would. I was surprised to see that Overholser also has very harsh criticism of Webb. This was totally absent from the four quotes from Overholser which were previously in the article. As noted above, all of these were indirect quotes from two articles defending Webb. It is not surprising that these articles omitted Overholser's criticisms, but it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to do so. Use of indirect quotes from sympathetic sources is one of the main reasons why the article came to be so unbalanced. Rgr09 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

One more try
I finally was able to get some of the Washington Post articles, so I'm going to take a stab at finishing up the section on coverage at other papers, and add some material I have at hand on Mercury News response. This will allow reduction in the very messy section on others' views on webb's writing, which is still awful. Rgr09 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Revising the section on views of webb's writing
Please excuse the length of this comment, but I have a lot to say on this. I have started revising by removing several quotes. The purpose of revising this section is not to remove praise for Webb or criticism of the Washington Post et al. It is to give the section a basic structure of some kind. The section now is a heap of random quotes, almost all of which purport to defend Webb or criticize Webb's critics in some way or another, but the total lack of structure keeps it from even doing that. The first part of fixing this is to get rid of some of the less useful or important quotes, principally from people who contribute less information to how Webb's series was written or edited or what it meant. Here are some comments on the quotes I removed.

The quote from Richard Thieme has been questioned more than once on the talk page. Other than having talked to Webb, he seems irrelevant to the article, so this was first to go. The Thieme quote was apparently originally added as a sort of counterbalance to a quote from Daniel Pipes. Pipes wrote a book on conspiracy theories that had harsh words for "Dark Alliance" and the quote from him was later deleted for lack of knowledge of the story or expertise in journalism. Thieme, however, remained despite his similar lack of qualifications.

The quote from Mark Fenster has similar problems. Fenster's book was actually a response to Pipes's book and suffers from the same defects that Pipes had, lack of knowledge of the story and lack of expertise in journalism. Looking at the references for the paragraph from Fenster that was cited, he refers to Schou's biography and a single article by Peter Kornbluh, showing no special knowledge or expertise.

The quote from Aucoin is from an article by Barbara Osborn in Extra magazine. I removed this because indirect quotes are problematic, as the Overholser quote mentioned above shows. If one cites Osborn's article, much better, and safer, to quote what Osborn says, rather than quote her quotes. The quote is also not integrated into the article, for which see below.

As noted above, Overholser's criticisms are moved to the section on Mercury News responses, where they fit in chronologically. In that section, I also added a quote from Steve Weinberg, dating from the same time. Weinberg is well qualified to comment on Webb's series; he is favorable to Webb, so if you are counting mark one on the plus side. I really do find it bizarre that people like Thieme were in the article and Weinberg, a notable journalist writing in a major newspaper, was not.

I also pulled a claim referenced to "Esquire magazine." It is unhelpful and often misleading to attribute quotes to magazines or newspapers, rather than the people who actually wrote the quote. The reference was to a profile of Webb in 1998 by Charles Bowden; again, not an ideal person to comment on the issues. In addition, the claim, that Webb's series had "copious citations" in contrast to the Los Angeles Times which used unnamed intelligence officials needs to be integrated somehow into the article. Instead it is just a random comment.

Double ditto for the very cryptic remark that "In September, 2014, the CIA Revealed how it watched over the destruction of Gary Webb." The citation is to an article that apparently has attracted some editors' attention, but not every reference to Webb and his series belongs in this article. "Wikipedia is not a directory." If you find an article you think provides information that belongs in the article on Webb, you need to explain what that is and fit it into the article. Random statements just dropped into the article like this should be deleted with a polite note asking the editor to fit it in somehow. Rgr09 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Added new section on end of series
I added this section because there was still no logical connection between the November 1996 events and Ceppos's column in May 1997. This is supplied mostly by Schou's biography. Although Schou gives important information from interviews with the main figures, his chronology is confusing and hard to follow. I also looked at an article by Pia Hinckle in Columbia Journalism Review, which has a timeline.

Ceppos's May 11 column is an essential part of the article. I realized just yesterday that the original description of the column had several errors, and have redone this part as well. These errors were mainly because the editor had not gone to the original column but had used a description from an article by Barbara Osborn in FAIR's magazine Extra. Ironically, Osborn did not include Ceppos's finding that the series did not include information that contradicted one of its central assertions. Rgr09 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Views on Webb's journalism 2
Moved most of "continuing debate" section here, then renamed it "film" because that's all that's left there. Added comments from reporters and editors who worked with Webb and what they felt his strengths and weaknesses were, 2 from Plain Dealer 2 from Mercury News, all of them cited extensively in works on Webb. Will revise remainder of section to give some evaluations of "Dark Alliance." Rgr09 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Views on Webb's journalism 3
I divided this long section into two: one on Webb's journalism overall, and one specific to views of "dark alliance" Overall, it is important to note that Webb's reporting in other stories was questioned; this can't be hidden, but much of his work won significant awards and the views of those most familiar with his work was overall quite positive. This article is a biography of Webb, so some such summary of overall evaluations of his reporting is important to add.

Of all Webb's work, however, "Dark Alliance" had the most influence on his career, so a separate section summarizing overall views of the series is also justified.

In this section I both added and removed some material. The Chicago Tribune commentary was a dead link; if I can find a live one, I'll put it back, since it is notable commentary in a major paper. The two Schou articles were not presented very clearly; I used them to give Schou's evaluation of the Dark Alliance claims, which I think is notable, considering Schou's knowledge of Webb and of the series. The article seemed to confuse Schou with the Los Angeles Times. Schou's opinion piece was published in the LAT, but that doesn't mean that Schou works for LAT, or that LAT agrees with Schou. It is incorrect to claim, based on Schou's article, that the LAT has recanted its views on Webb or "Dark Alliance". Ditto the Chicago Tribune; it is not even clear what the Trib's original view of the series was.

I revised Corn's comments to reflect his views on the series, which are not that far from Schou's. This was not clear in earlier versions of the article. Corn was familiar with the "Dark Alliance" series, and wrote a long review of the book version; as a major investigative reporter his views are also notable.

I also added relevant quotes from Jeff Leen's article. This article was discussed a while ago on the talk page, with some editors arguing it should not be included. I cannot agree with this. Leen is an important editor, who has overseen a number of series and articles that resulted in Pulitzer prizes; his own work has also contributed to Pulitzer prizes for both the Miami Herald and Washington Post. Leen was a senior reporter at the Miami Herald in the 1980s and wrote a book on the cocaine trade, so he is familiar with the background of the series, and is highly qualified to evaluate the series.

One reason given for excluding Leen's views was the fact that this was an op-ed piece. So was Schou's article and the Chicago trib article and many other sources cited in the article. There is no justification for excluding such writing from an article and I have not hesitated to add such material, here and elsewhere. Another reason seems to have been based on the fact that Leen debated Webb at an IRE conference in 1997. This was characterized on the talk page as a "feud". It is not a feud when two people disagree. Leen cannot be excluded just because he disagreed with Webb. Rgr09 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

References and external links 3
I have moved the links to the investigation reports and congressional hearings from the external links section into the reference section. Most of these are now referred to in the article multiple times, so putting them up with the other frequently cited works seems best.

I have left the links to interviews featuring Webb, and added another to his C-span interview in 1998.

Of the remaining external links, I incorporated a couple in the views on Webb's journalism. The others should mostly not stay and I have deleted them. Some were simply descriptions of Webb's funeral, such as the George Sanchez and Chrisanne Beckner ones. Others were by people who I'm not sure had more than a passing acquaintance with Webb, such as Jeff Cohen. Cockburn and St. Clair simply present an earlier appeal Webb wrote for people to support Giordano's legal case. Giordano is basically a blog post that offers no more than his angry ramblings.

The Brian Covert "tribute", however, turned out to be transcriptions of a speech Webb gave at City College of San Francisco in Feb. 1997 and an interview the next day at the Mercury News office in Sacramento. It is very unclear where these came from or who did them; provenance is much too uncertain to use in the article, but it is still very interesting material well worth a link. Rgr09 (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

San Jose to Cupertino is only 15 minutes.
"Offered a choice between working in San Jose under editorial supervision or spot reporting in Cupertino, Webb chose Cupertino, 150 miles from his home." (Reference 50) This sentence implies it is the 150 miles that mattered and not the editorial supervision. San Jose Mercury News and Cupertino are 10.5 miles apart. The above sentence makes no sense or is very weak. source: https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/San+Jose+Mercury+News,+4+North+2nd+Street+%23800,+San+Jose,+CA+95113,+United+States/Cupertino,+CA,+USA/@37.3110503,-121.9766236,13z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x808fcc0a74e019ef:0x66c29ec212a8c7a8!2m2!1d-121.889722!2d37.337568!1m5!1m1!1s0x808fb4571bd377ab:0x394d3fe1a3e178b4!2m2!1d-122.0321823!2d37.3229978!3e0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.55.8 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. The sentence wasn't supposed to imply that the distance was the main reason Webb chose Cupertino, but I have to admit this whole brief section now seems very vague to me.  I'll take another look as my time permits.  Remember too, that you are looking at driving times in 2014, but Webb was driving in 1997. Note that in 1997 the Mercury News was at 750 Ridder Park Drive, near Brokaw and I-880. It moved back to downtown San Jose in 2014. To really figure Webb's traveling time, you also have to know where Webb's home in Sacramento was. 150 miles came from Schou, p. 165, but the maps I'm now looking at seem to say only 120. Rgr09 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Scope of CIA-OIG report
There is a lot that can be said about the scope of the CIAO-OIG report, but most of it is in the report and does not need to be added into the article. I think that scope in the sense of what the OIG looked for should be in the article. It seems unnecessary to add a description of what was removed in order to declassify the report. Interested readers can look at the link. Please try to avoid adding information that is already in the article. Rgr09 (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Justice, CIA, House reports
The results of the Justice, CIA, and House Intelligence Committee reports are an integral part of this article. The reports are not beyond criticism, but criticism should have a reliable source and should be presented NPOV. If there is a problem with the current presentation, feel free to change; having spent some time on this part of the article I would appreciate a note on the talk page explaining the problems you saw, but that's optional of course. On the other hand, to simply delete the conclusions of the report that you find inconvenient, without any note or discussion, is not acceptable editing practice. Rgr09 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should have just as many Russian intelligence sources on Boris Nemtsov? Should we just regard allegations of his death being perpetrated by Russia as nothing more than conspiracy theories? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that Webb leveled allegations against the CIA, the government response to those allegations is certainly appropriate and is likely covered in secondary sources anyway. Regardless, mainstream non-governmental sources, including Webb's own paper, also reported that Webb's allegations were lacking credibility. What is applicable to another article should certainly be raised on that article's talk page. - Location (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the point of the comment. It seems to be an objection to the article's description of the report by the CIA's Office of the Inspector General. The commenter compares this to giving space in the article on Boris Nemtsov to "Russian intelligence sources", and feels this is not appropriate.  If that really is the point, I'll respond, since I put in the section on the CIA-OIG report.


 * IF the FSB had a statuorily independent Inspector General, and IF this hypothetical IG had power to compel the testimony of FSB officers under oath and under polygraph, and IF the hypothetical IG used his hypothetical powers to conduct an 18 month investigation which produced a 400+ page report on the assassination of Nemtsov, and IF this hypothetical report were made public in any form, non-redacted or redacted, and IF the hypothetical IG testified on the hypothetical report before a hypothetical Committee on Intelligence in the Russian Duma which had the hypothetical power to sentence him to prison if he committed perjury, then I would strongly favor a detailed description of the report and all the attendant circumstances in the Wikipedia article on Nemtsov, in a manner consistent with the description of the CIA-OIG report given in this article.


 * Unfortunately, there is no Committee, no IG, no report, and no powers to do these things in Russia, hence no opportunity to write about them in Wikipedia. Rgr09 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

More on suicide
How to describe Webb's suicide is the most common source of changes to the article, almost all of them attempting to impose editors' belief that Webb did not commit suicide by removing the word suicide or putting it in scare quotes. Without any discussion on the talk page or sources in the article, this type of NPOV editing should just be reverted. Rgr09 (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the case of Gary Webb could just as easily be described as "Cause and Effect" as it could be described as "Flawless CIA Technique." We will probably never know what really happened, but it's difficult to believe that his death was suicide, to me.  Certainly, a life that seemed to spiral downward after he implicated the CIA, ending in suicide, just seems a little bit too convenient.  On the other hand, surely the CIA would have made every effort to make the death look like a suicide... so why the double-tap?  That would certainly lead to questions as to the nature of the death.  Perhaps a Third Party with ulterior motives?  This is one of the most perplexing issues that I have ever seen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.15.154.136 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We do know what "really happened". Webb's actions prior to his death indicate that he was suicidal. His first shot was non-fatal; the second nicked an artery. Multiple gunshot suicide is already linked in the article. - Location (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 one external links on Gary Webb. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/day1main.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/day2main.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/day3main.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/postscript/archive.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.sjmercury.com/drugs/library/sheriff/finding.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.sjmercury.com/drugs/library/46.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www1.sjmercury.com/drugs/library/44.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/postscript1013.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.sjmercury.com/drugs/postscript/controversy/controversy1103.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/column051197.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Maxine Waters quote
An editor has added a quote from Maxine Waters in the legacy section. I have to ask: is this appropriate? Her views have already been captured elsewhere and she is hardly objective (for a variety of reasons including the fact she wrote the foreword to Dark Alliance).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Webb and the SJMN Pulitzer
The San Jose Mercury News won the Pulitzer award for general news reporting in 1990. The award was to "the staff of the San Jose Mercury News" for "its detailed coverage of the October 17, 1989, Bay Area earthquake and its aftermath." Pulitzer staff awards are not unusual; the Washington Post and New York Times have received a number of these. These awards do not credit individual reporters, though they are based on specific articles by specific reporters.

Everyone who has written on Webb's career acknowledges that Webb's work played a role in the 1990 Pulitzer award to the SJMN, mostly citing the article mentioned in the text on the Cypress Viaduct collapse, which Webb wrote with Pete Carey. For instance, in Nick Schou's biography of Webb, Kill the Messenger, Schou writes that "Together, Carey and Webb exposed how bureaucratic delays in retrofitting local 'highways' had contributed to the earthquake disaster. Their work helped result in the paper's Pulitzer for team reporting that year" (Schou 57). This is a fair, balanced description of Webb's contribution to the SJMN award.

In general, Wikipedia does not credit specific reporters with Pulitzer awards for their contributions to staff awards. 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 Wikipedia article on Woodward, 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.

Since the 1990 Pulitzer was a staff award, and since general Wikipedia practice is as noted above, I have reverted the specific claim to Webb winning the Pulitzer in the lead. Webb's contribution to the SJMN Pulitzer is acknowledged in the second paragraph of the article. Please comment here if you think the wording in the lead needs changing. Rgr09 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Suicide
Everyone knows he was killed by the CIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C000:7B59:25E8:63CA:E31D:E195 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Many people would not agree: his wife, his children, his biographer, and most of his friends have said they think he killed himself. To put your claim into the article, you need to come up with a reliable source (WP:RS will describe what that is).  Without RS, the article will not incorporate your claim, unless/until Wikipedia abandons this policy. Rgr09 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What Rgr09 said^^^... An anonymous posting on a Wikipedia page is insufficient referencing for something everyone supposedly knows... Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Many things that 'everyone knows' aren't reference in what Wikipedia determines as "Reliable Sources", which is generally the mainstream media. If the New York Times had published an article claiming he was killed by the CIA then it would be included in wWikipedia. But we all know that won't happen don't we? 81.151.27.22 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Most people know that 9/11 is an inside job, but mainstream media wouldn't admit it for obvious reasons. So it will always remain a conspiracy theory... Gary Webb's suicide is the "offcial" version of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.19.201 (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You changed the article to say that Webb was shot twice in the back of the head. Who says so? How do you know this? The autopsy, as reported in multiple newspaper stories cited in the article, found that Webb placed a gun next to his right ear, and fired twice. He was not shot in the back of the head. Rgr09 (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia should simply state the undisputed facts. Webb died December 10, 2004, with two gunshot wounds to the head, and his death was ruled a suicide. This isn't the place to solve the debate about whether his death *actually was* suicide or not. 174.17.79.52 (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article clearly says the facts you mention in the section on his death. Saying it was anything other than suicide (in the intro) is clearly trying to suggest an idea that was rejected by his own family.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The intro does not state it was anything other than a suicide. It states the known facts. Stating simply "Webb committed suicide" is clearly trying to dismiss the controversy.174.17.79.52 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "controversy" (and details) is addressed in the section on his death. There is no proof it was anything other than a suicide and his family accepts that conclusion.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've sent a notice to another editor of this page and perhaps this will be resolved.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a controversy or debate or dispute about Webb's death, there should be a reliable source on the subject. No one has yet provided this. The coroner's finding was suicide, and news reports make clear that the family agreed, based on personal details and knowledge of Webb's death. The main biography of Webb by Nick Schou goes into detail on the events of Webb's suicide, and mentions no dispute over Webb's suicide, except by people like Alex Jones, the host of an Internet radio show who has made obviously false claims concerning Webb's death, such as Webb confronting intruders at his house not long before his death. According to Jones, the intruders fled by jumping off the balcony, but as Schou p. 220 notes, Webb's house was a one story building and did not have a balcony.  If this is the kind of stuff behind the idea that there is a dispute about Webb's death, forget it.  If you have a reliable source that disputes Webb's death was a suicide, please post here, in the meantime I'm reverting to the original . Rgr09 (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent points and thanks for the input Rgr09Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you accept any source as "reliable" other than the very media that destroyed his reputation?174.17.79.52 (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have been told how to address this issue. Either stop reverting this article or you will be reported.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reported for what? Show me the rule and I'll obey it. There are reliable sources already in the article for all the facts in my edit.174.17.79.52 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rgr09 told you the rule and what to do. If you will note on the article history page, a administrator said not to revert his edit without resolution here. And you have done just that. The edit you have up now has been tried before and was rejected. But if Rgr09 goes along with it, I will accept it. I have also notified an administrator to resolve this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why was it rejected?174.17.79.52 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See above. Rgr09 explained it to you. Your only reply was to complain about media sources. That's not good enough.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have ever written on the article is disputed. Reliable sources were provided. You only disagree with the language. But you said the current version was "tried before and was rejected". Why was it rejected, and by who? 174.17.79.52 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rgr09 is the one who made the decision on that. And I agree with it. It clearly is trying to make an innuendo about his suicide that is was something other than that. I would suggest we leave this to Rgr09 and the administrator I have notified to settle this since it appears we will not reach a consensus between ourselves.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm merely stating all the facts. The fact that there were two gunshot wounds is probably the most notable fact in the whole story.174.17.79.52 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. You have gone over the bright line that Wikipedia set. I reported it on the edit warring noticeboard because it's not worth my time to try and keep up with an edit war. See what I wrote, see what the response on the the noticeboard is. Rgr09 (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to my report on the edit warring noticeboard and 174.17.79.52's response. Rgr09 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've revised the lead note on Webb's suicide. Summarizing the discussion on the edit warring noticeboard, previous discussions on the talk page, and my own understanding of Wikipedia standards, there are numerous reliable sources that state Webb committed suicide. Any claim that Webb was murdered requires the same. Much of the discussion of Webb's death on the Internet is not from reliable sources, and is therefore not acceptable in the article. Note that simply removing the word suicide, or putting it in scare quotes, does not free you from this basic requirement for all Wikipedia articles.


 * In addition, Webb's autopsy showed that he shot himself twice, a multiple gunshot suicide. This is mentioned in the infobox at the top of the article and is clearly stated and clearly sourced in the section on Webb's death. Repetitions of this in other parts of the article, especially the lead, can easily become undue weight, which conflicts with Wikipedia's requirement that all articles should be presented from a neutral point of view. Such additions should first be discussed on the talk page, and not inserted unilaterally. The burden is on the editor who wants to insert repetitious material to explain how it does not conflict with this requirement. Rgr09 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help in this Rgr09.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge with CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking

 * I've merged much of the information on this page with the article CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking. It could probably be cleaned up there, and perhaps this article should link to that as a Main Article. Nooneisneutral (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the two articles are mergable, and moving substantial parts of Gary Webb over to the problematic CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking would create massive problems both here and there. I will put further comments over there. Given the relative content of the two articles, I think the use of a See also link from Gary Webb to CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking is preferable to citing CIA/Contra as a main article. Rgr09 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree there is more work to be done on the other article, but some of the content in this article (like the federal investigations), although responding to Gary Webb's articles, is focused on the allegations, not Gary Webb. Those in particular belong on the other article, and comparing this to, for example, the Carl Bernstein and Watergate Scandal, and other articles, I see that the author's article rarely discusses their work in such detail.Nooneisneutral (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
After some thought, I've revised the lead paragraph. The main issue here is the use of citations for the summary of views on "Dark Alliance." The original summary was in the last paragraph of the lead section. This was deleted several months ago by an anonymous IP editor, apparently because it was unsourced. A new summary paragaph was later added, with citations to a number of sources, some used in the main body of the article, some not. WP:LEADCITE makes clear that citations in the lead are acceptable, but it was not clear to me what part of the sources now cited support what part of the summary. As an alternative, I've simplified the summary and sourced it to the sections in the article, as I did for Webb's suicide. I'm open to other solutions, but the internal consistency of the article is important. Rgr09 (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
Considering the fact unregistered users keep messing with the page as far as the suicide goes.....does anyone think we ought to have the page protected?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - To those I pinged, what do you think? We just had another anonymous user mess with the suicide aspect of the article today. Would protection/semi-protection be an answer to the on-going issues with this? Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * True, the article has had frequent suicide -> murder edits this year: 3 in January, 2 in February, 6 in March, 2 in May, 1 so far in July. I don't know what to do about this. It's an ongoing, long term issue, but generally wikipedia doesn't want to do long term page protection (WP:PP). Maybe WP:PC, "sometimes favoured when an article is being vandalised regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing." Rgr09 (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Added more info on the lawsuits at the Plain Dealer
Re-reading this article the other day (and Schou's book) it kind of misleads the reader that the first time Webb's work was questioned was the Dark Alliance series. This is inaccurate. Some of the same issues (with headlines and so forth) that came to the forefront in the Dark Alliance series had been raised before (with other articles). Ergo I included them here. Any issues......let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The CIA, Contras, Gangs, and Crack
The CIA, Contras, Gangs, and Crack https://ips-dc.org/the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack/ Kill the Messenger (2014 film) scenes:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZbXA4lyCtqptOtzdt_Y8aA9DCN6QbGFu
 * What is your point in this? What changes do you propose?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References in sections CIA report and House committee report
The references "Hitz, 'Scope of investigation,'" "Hitz, Vol. 1, 'Conclusions.'" and "'Report on Alleged Involvement: Findings' 43" do not link to anything. Apparently this text is available online here. Is there no way to link to the pages referenced? I read somewhere that it is possible to link directly to specific pages of books at archive.org or openlibrary.org but I'm not sure how to do that. -- Ubh [ talk... contribs... ] 10:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like I was able to do it once with archive.org. I will look back and see if I can find when/how I did it. (It was in another article.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The first two cites UBH gives are from the CIA IG's report, volume 2 (The Contra Story). The CIA website has moved the location of this report several times in the last 7 years or so. I suggest that the article link to the FAS copy, located at https://irp.fas.org/cia/product/cocaine2/contents.html. It is an accurate copy, it hasn't ever moved, and it retains the paragraph numbering which is needed to find stuff in the report; this was missing in the CIA version when I downloaded it seven years ago. Note that the IG report does not use page numbering, it uses paragraph numbering.
 * The document UBH has linked to at archive.org is indeed labeled as coming from the "PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES", but a glance at the title page will show you that this is in fact the Senate hearings on the Mercury News series, not the HPSCI report. There are two files at this link, the HPSCI report is the second file. Not sure how to get it to display in the archive.org pdf viewer. Sorry I don't have time to fix the links myself. Rgr09 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Suicide in the lead again
The issue of how to refer to Webb's death has come up yet again. The lead was changed to add the following sentence: On December 10, 2004, Webb was found dead in his apartment shoot twice in the head. His death was ruled a suicide.

Exactly this sort of change was the subject of a long discussion above. Webb's death was a suicide. The fact that he shot himself in the face twice is already referenced in the article two times: in the infobox, and in the article under the section on Webb's death. Some editors feel this is not enough, and that it should be mentioned a third time, as prominently as possible, preferably in the lead. This is undue weight, and I've reverted such changes more than once. If you disagree, please discuss your concerns here first, rather than just adding the same disputed content again. And again... Rgr09 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that a person with alleged suicide intention, is capable of shooting hisself twice in the face. Please reopen this case for the sake of justice and his next of kin and friends. Nicolás van Boxtel - Spain. 95.129.252.18 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

"death was a suicide" and "was ruled a suicide" is a huge difference. Either it was proven a suicide, as in the lead, or it "was ruled a suicide" as written in the Death section. Which is it going to be? --Hoffmansk 16:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)
 * What do you feel is the difference between these two? I am especially unclear what you mean by "proven a suicide." The lead does not use the phrase "proven", but it does take Webb's death to be a suicide. I do not see how this contradicts the description in the Death section. Rgr09 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The people who want to keep adding this "ruled a suicide" business to the lead are doing it in a calculated attempt to imply a murder. If it was ruled a suicide.....that's enough for the lead. The details of his death are given in the main body.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ruled a suicide by a coroner, as if coroners are paragons of uncorruptible virtue. can't be threatened, don't have political proclivities.Webb was shot twice in the head, and the coroner said it's happened before.https://www.editorandpublisher.com/news/gary-webb-s-death-confirmed-as-suicide/. Two head taps is a signature of a professional hit, full stop period.There was another reporter who ran afoul of the CIA and died mysteriously while working on an expose of the CIA.. Michael Hastings (journalist):    "he drove a brand new Mercedes C250 coupe. The vehicle hit a tree at high speed, burst into flames and the engine was launched 100 feet down the street. One witness compared the sound coming from the blast to a bomb explosion. The impact shook nearby houses. Mercedez-Benz said their cars/software “couldn’t malfunction as such” and offered to make a complete “autopsy” of the car/computer."https://truthfeed.com/flashback-reporter-killed-in-freak-car-crash-while-working-on-cia-expose/55719/. So it was reported that his family thinks it was an accident,and that is definitive?

The FBI denied having an investigation open on Michael Hastings, and that was subsequently proven to be a lie.

And we are to believe that the CIA, Think Tanks, Corporations, Political Parties,Foreign governments, Religious organizations, etc do not have personnel (paid or unpaid) monitoring social media outlets and public information sites such as WP posting and discrediting adverse information. Anyone interested in a bridge?Oldperson (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a place for your speculations. RS put his death as suicide and RS say multiple gunshot suicides are not uncommon. If you don't stop posting these attacks about the supposed motivations of other posters here.....you will be reported.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Was there a suicide note? Did any of his friends and family say that he mentioned to them that he was thinking of committing suicide? Was he seeing a therapist or a priest or something? Simanos (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes he left several notes in fact. According to the LA Times: "He typed out four lengthy suicide notes and put them in the mail to family members. He placed his prearranged cremation certificate and Social Security card on the kitchen counter of his suburban Sacramento home. He put the keys to his cars and motorcycles in an envelope addressed to his oldest son."Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Could we change it to say, "committed suicide by shooting himself in the head twice"? 67.155.253.113 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Webb's suicide is clearly described in the article. He raised the gun to the side of his head, pointing at his ear. The angle was such that the bullet went through his face and came out his cheek. This was a non-fatal wound. He shot himself again and the coroner found that the second shot hit an artery and he bled to death. The article should not give misleading descriptions of Webb's injuries. All this talk about "double-taps" and Webb being shot in the back of the head is false. Rgr09 (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is necessary to clarify a consensus, I agree with Rgr09. Webb's suicide was unusual in the sense that most suicide's take only one shot, but the explanation for his death is definitive. There is no evidence that he was murdered or that there was a conspiracy to murder him, so we do float information to imply those things. -Location (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for edit
Please can somebody edit the short introduction? I doubt it should say "American investigative journalist (1955–2004) 7’4” 568 lbs he wears size 25 shoes". The latter part seems like vandalism. I'd do it myself but I don't know how. Thank you. Sideriver84 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't appear to contain that wording. Where are you seeing this? Squeakachu (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Father the "Marine Sergeant" Retired...
A Sergeant in the Marines is an E-5 (paygrade) and far below in rank than what one would expect someone to retire as after an assumed 20 years (or more) career. This incomplete information begs several questions. Grades above "Sergeant" are Staff Sergeant, Gunnery Sergeant (E-6, E-7, respectively) etc... and it is inappropriate to downgrade these elevated ranks to E-5 ("Sergeant"). unless Webb's father "retired" early as a medical or disciplinary discharge, in which case the word "retirement" is inappropriate and inaccurate. This lack of detail and clarity is a stumbling block for readability. 2603:8081:3A00:414A:3C79:55E:B074:23B7 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)