| Revision as of 06:07, 5 September 2015 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,988 editsm Signing comment by 186.15.154.136 - "→More on suicide: "← Previous edit |
Revision as of 16:51, 9 September 2015 edit undoLocation (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users23,986 edits →More on suicideNext edit → |
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
|
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. ] (]) 03:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
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. ] (]) 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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
: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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::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. ] is already linked in the article. - ] (]) 16:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Justice, CIA, House reports == |
|
== Justice, CIA, House reports == |
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)
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)
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)
