User talk:Rgr09

As you've noted, a one-sided view of Webb's allegations appears in more than a few Wikipedia articles. In most cases, it seems that there is undue weight given to the allegations that the most substantive of them were investigated thoroughly and rejected as baseless. I may put a better, formatted version of this edit together to tack on wherever I see reference to Webb's claims of CIA involvement. - Location (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that many articles get the Webb story wrong, but I think you've put things a little strongly in one or two places.

First, I wouldn't say the Mercury News disavowed the story. There was at one point a controversy in the Gary Webb article over whether it was retracted or not. Jonathan Krim, the editor charged with checking the story, called the paper's statement a retraction, but Jerry Ceppos, the executive editor, did not say that in his final column on the series.^[1] The description of Ceppos's column in the San Jose Mercury News article might do for your purposes, though it's a little rosy. There should be a link to the column, however you decide to go; don't use Tina Daunt's article for this.

Second, I would be careful using the word 'repudiated' to describe other papers' coverage of the series. Their coverage was not as tough as some have claimed; it was on the editorial pages that the series got slammed. I think that it's fair to say that the big three papers' articles on 'Dark Alliance' all agreed its claims were 'overstated'. The most hostile reaction was to the series' claim that the CIA started the crack epidemic. If you want to use words like repudiate or reject, save them for that. Nick Schou thought this was where Webb lost his credibility, and I'm sure he's right.

The quotes from the DOJ and CIA OIG reports are good I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgr09 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 31 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Regarding the first point, you are correct. Daunt wrote: "Later, his bosses at the Mercury News all but disavowed the piece, with a front-page editor's note stating that the series had largely overstated its provocative findings." [Emphasis mine.] Later in her article, she called it "a stunning rebuke of the series". Secondary sources should usually be used over primary sources, so that is why I used Daunt. There are other secondary sources, mostly tied to Kill the Messenger (2014 film), mentioning Ceppos' column that could be used: , , and .

Regarding the second point, that, too, can be toned down. In her article, Daunt quoted The New York Times: "'Reporting by the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times produced no clear evidence of any direct line between the drug dealers and the CIA,' the New York Times noted in a follow-up story." If there is some sort of conflict of reporting interest from those three papers, perhaps we should avoid them. I'm wondering what you think about using this article from the recently defunct American Journalism Review. - Location (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The NOLA story on Ceppos looks good if you don't want to link to the original column. On the major papers' coverage of the story, I think Daunt is okay, she didn't work on the LAT response to Dark Alliance. Overall, Nick Schou's biography of Webb, Kill the messenger, (the book the movie was 'based on') is the best source I have found on the journalism side of things, but it's not online. Susan Paterno's article at AJR is one of the best things on line. You should read the whole thing, its not that long. The version of the article you link to is missing several side-bar pieces that might be useful. Try searching for articles by Paterno at AJR archives to find the side-bar stuff. If you want a single source for all your info, Paterno might be a good choice. Rgr09 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When I have secondary sources discussing a primary source, I typically use both. The Paterno piece has "Related reading:" at the top that appears to link to the other articles you mentioned. Per some of the issues noted in Talk:CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking, I'm working on an outline here. Feel free to add material or comment on the talk page. - Location (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm making a quick-response to your questions (and working on the rest of it later), but for questions about my interest in the article, you can email me at surefootedone2013@gmail.com Sure Footed1 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're still interested in Nugan Hand, I'm willing to email/post a copy of the Section of the Stewart Royal Commission report dealing with the CIA if you provide an address...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Thanks! I'm still very interested to see what the report had to say. I've set up a sendmail address for my wikipedia account, perhaps that would be the best way to get it to me. If that doesn't work, or is not convenient, feel free to post it here. Rgr09 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I will email it. 1st I need to scan it, and that might take me a couple of days to do.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Rgr09, we have (what appears to be) an edit war on the Gary Webb page. (If you look at the history of the article, you will see what I am saying.) An editor is trying to change the intro. What do you think? See the talk page for comments.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy is still at it. But I've told him what to do.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

We could use your input again. The guy won't leave the thing alone. Sorry to keep bothering you.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if you have much interest in Iran–Contra affair, but I thought I would run a question by you. I stumbled across Malcolm Byrne's blog here that points to this document released by the CIA that seems to state Syria, rather than Mehdi Hashemi, leaked word to Ash-Shiraa about the trip of Robert McFarlane et al. to Tehran which broke open the scandal. Do you have any more information or thoughts on that? -Location (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm very unfamiliar with the Iran side of Iran-Contra. I have Draper's book (he discusses Al-Shiraa 457-460), but have not read the whole thing. The SI article says Al-Shiraa was Syrian funded and Draper mentions a couple of people who claimed this. If Syria did control Al-Shiraa, the article's claims seem reasonable, even without knowing the redacted source mentioned in the SI article. Rgr09 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There are so many sources that attribute the leak to Mehdi Hasemi or his friends, but the only "official" story I can find is on the bottom right column of page 520 of the Iran-Contra report... and they said they got it from a NYT article! They Syrian-theory is likely a better explanation, but there is only that primary source and blog. -Location (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

On the US side: The article on John K. Singlaub cites an AP report — that came out while John McCain was running for President — that states Singlaub's United States Council for World Freedom "became the public cover for the White House operation". There are lots of similar reports around the same time, however, the only "official" story I have on this is a brief mention on the upper right column of page 127 of the Iran-Contra report. I was aware of Richard Secord's "The Enterprise" linked to Iran-Contra, but I hadn't heard of any of Singlaub's "involvements" playing any sort of role. -Location (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

For most of Iran-Contra's basic facts and a strong analysis that seems to have stood up well, I suggest Draper's book.^[1] Draper's take on Singlaub is on p. 86-89: "He was a filibustering type, who had injected himself into the contra affair without anyone's leave and who operated without official status but not without the blessing and cooperation of some officials, especially North." The AP article on McCain is typical of election year journalism nowadays and is not a useful source for Iran-Contra. Rgr09 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has pointed out in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.62 (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Lee Harvey Oswald article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.72 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, in case you didn’t see my ping, I’ve left a comment for you at the dispute resolution notice board where you posted a case. Cheers. Steven Crossin 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your valiant effort to improve the unconscionably shoddy entry for Dan Mitrione. Nicmart (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Rgr09! I saw that you pinged me regarding a discussion about Operation Mockingbird, so I posted a reply and thought I would stop by to say "hello". I won't rule out the possibility of editing an article now and then, but I don't intend to get sucked into this futile endeavor again. Hope all is well. Cheers! -Location (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Location: Hey, great to hear from you! Hope you can edit in the future as your time (and patience!) permit; I'm looking forward to more of your improvements, corrections, and comments. Editing Wikipedia can often produce feelings of futility, but you've done a lot of good work, put in a lot of solid content and fixed a lot of messy stuff. That counts for plenty in my book. Rgr09 (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

In William Northrop, I read: "In 1988, after the death of William J. Casey, it was discovered that Northrop had an ongoing relationship with the Director of Central Intelligence when phone logs surfaced."^[1] I am skeptical of anything cited to Honegger and anyone attempting to link known fabricators to the CIA, so I looked for more information. This May 1988 article by Brian Barger states: "Another participant in the operation, William Northop -- an Oklahoma City resident with ties to the Israeli spy agency -- told investigators he was also brought into the operation by Mossad agents with whom he had worked for a number of years. Congressional investigators said phone logs from the late CIA Director William Casey showed Northrop was in frequent contact with the spymaster during this time." (I assume that these were investigators for the Kerry Committee, but I'm not positive.) In 1993, the House October Surprise Task Force said Israel denied an association with him(p. 224) and the footnotes say that Northrop denied the link, too(p. 229), so clearly the Congressional investigators referred to in the article received erroneous information from Northrop. Do you have any more information regarding this investigation or Casey's phone logs? Thanks! -Location (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When you are looking for info on Northrop, remember he is often referred to as "Will" rather than "William", and his last name is sometimes mis-spelled "Northrup". Northrop is only mentioned once in the Kerry committee report (p. 130), which says "Brenneke first came to the Subcommittee's attention through Will Northrop, one of the defendants in the "Evans" Iranian arms sale case in New York." This seems to support the claim that the Kerry people interviewed him, but there are no references in the report to William Casey's "phone logs". Barger's article is apparently the only place where this claim occurs. I have more to say about the Northrop article, but I'll put it in the talk section. Rgr09 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Interested in what you have to say. I removed the sentence with an explanation on the talk page. Cheers! -Location (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Rgr09/Sandbox/Subpage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKintelligence.htm and https://www.quora.com/Is-the-CIA-still-to-this-day-infiltrating-the-media. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Amkgp ✉ 11:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, I removed the tag. 1) The information that the bot thought was copied was actually moved a Wikipedia article. 2) The first link was citing the same report Wikipedia cited. 3) Quora copied the Wikipedia article (not the other way around). - Location (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I did not notice it was accidentally created in mainspace. - Location (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

what did I do wrong? Oh the disadvantages of a humanities degree instead of CS. Rgr09 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I know what you mean! Follow the following format: User:Rgr09/Sandbox, User:Rgr09/Sandbox/Subpage, User:Rgr09/Sandbox/CIA and the press. If User:Rgr09/ precedes the working name of the sandbox, you should be OK. - Location (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Rgr09. You recently edited the article in the subject line by leaving the POV tag on it. Could you elaborate a bit further? I noticed on the talk page some comments (by you) on the Mexico section and so on.....but I'm not 100% sure what the issues are. I probably shouldn't be asking because I am only knowledgeable enough about the CIA/Contra/Gary Webb allegations to edit that aspect of the article. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33:Hi! I will respond on the talk page of the article. Rgr09 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rgr09:I would try to do something with the article as far as the Golden Triangle deal goes.....but I am not that knowledgeable on those allegations. I know a great deal about the Webb/Contra allegations.....just not those. I can always take a crack at it if you want.....but i wouldn't be 100% comfortable on those points.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is good time to pawn off this project on someone else (i.e. Rja13ww33)! - Location (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33:@Location:Although I've edited a fair amount in the last few weeks, I'm actually in the middle of a summer project which takes up most of my time, so the stuff I've been doing is mostly quick fixups. If Rja13ww33 is interested in the drug allegations page, go for it. Location was working on a big revision of the Laos/Air America part of that, if his notes on that are still around somewhere, reading those might help Rja13ww33 get up to speed on the history of the allegations. I probably won't be doing any substantial revision work again until September. Revisions are needed, go for it! Rgr09 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I placed then removed the material on his talk page, too. I enjoyed working on that with you (I learned a lot and I have much respect for you!), but I am not a historian or scholar with any expertise in the subject matter who could do it justice. And I would not expect you to do it for free here without any credit if you could write a book and make a few dollars off it. Cheers! - Location (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Based on the info provided.....and what else I can find, I might go for it. But it may be far from perfect.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am intending to get to this. Have been a bit distracted by stuff both on and off of wiki. It is on my "to do" list.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rgr09: Earlier today I logged on to Wikipedia the first time in a year, and I see you just about did the same with your edit on the talk page there. - Location (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Location: Hello! Very pleasant to see you back on line. This is the first time I've edited in over a year, not sure where I can contribute anything useful at this point. If you have any suggestions let me know. Rgr09 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been 4 months since I made a talk section about a lone sentence in question. I can't thank you enough for changing it, and I can see that there is enough evidence that the contract killers were hired by the cartel to kill Seal. Again, I can't thank you enough for changing it, and I, pretty much, didn't saw that coming until 4 months later. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I noted the facts you laid out on the Kiki Camarena page and may add them to the Felix Rodriguez page. (In addition to the denials I've already added.) The Vince Bugliosi comments I think are important.....but I originally held off on them because it seemed to awkward to put in. (I.e. all the sudden to stick in a bunch of stories about the Kennedy assassination.) But I will give it some thought. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I created Elaine Shannon if you feel like giving it a quick review. - Location (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Location: Looks good, but would like to have more sources in addition to the CNN link. I have some other reviews of Desperadoes that I can add when time permits. This remains the most thorough treatment of the Camarena case. Wish she had done a more thorough revision on the 88-92 U.S. trials is all. In sum, Shannon is a solid RS on the drug trade. Her work is accurate and has good annotation for journalistic works. Shannon is especially good at getting quotes and info from people who don't usually talk to the press, as her recent story on the Amazon pseudo-documentary shows. Rgr09 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rgr09: Could you check this edit when you have a moment? The passage is cited to Shannon. Cheers! -Location (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked the Elaine Shannon book at the page cited. She says, "Growers in California and Oregon had pioneered a technique that yielded extraordinarily potent marijuana, called sinsemilla, 'without seeds.' ... Sinsemilla pioneers in the United States worked tiny plots and sold exquisitely manicured clippings for $2500 a pound, eight times the price of Mexican commercial-grade pot." So Shannon certainly believes it was an American innovation. The point of the passage is that Caro Quintero was an entrepreneurial talent who recognized that he could apply the new technique in Mexico and significantly enhance his profits. I'm sure that Shannon had a source for this claim, but it is not listed in the notes. The editor's objection seems to based purely on the use of Spanish for the varietal, and no source is offered for the counter-claim. Rgr09 (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That is as much as I could tell from the GBooks view, too. I'll change it back. -Location (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey! Whenever you get back 'round to these parts, I'm wondering if you might review John Watkins (diplomat) and make changes that you think are appropriate. Cheers! - Location (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)