Talk:Suicide of Vince Foster

Untitled

IMPORTANT NOTE

This article, and this talk page, is about the death of Vince Foster.

General biographical material on Foster's life go into Vince Foster, and discussion of their editing into Talk:Vince Foster.

An archive of material about the death of Foster, before this split was done, may be found in Talk:Vince Foster/Archive.

Fort Marcy Park

I thought Vince Foster's body was found at Turkey Run Park in Virginia on the George Washington Parkway. It appears to have been developed judging by its current website, but at the time had no facilities. It was an old colonial farm as I recall. I used to pull in there to take a leak when I was stuck in traffic. Never anyone around. Pick a tree, any tree, sort of thing. Perfect place to dump a body. D.L. Exelby 9/12/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.83.34 (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Turkey Run Park is not really a park at all but a buffer around the CIA HQ posing as a park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.243.231 (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What makes for a conspiracy theory

What makes for a 'Conspiracy Theory' is the feasibility that any one of a number of assumptions may be true given too few known facts.65.117.83.34 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, any number of the "assumptions" (i.e., the "theory" dismissed as a "conspiracy") may be true because a cover-up is in progress -- as has been asserted by Starr's resigned lead investigator on the case, Miguel Rogriguez (see below on the talk page).--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the case here also.65.117.83.34 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. It is the government's "finding", which you are expected to reflexively parrot like a non-sentient animal.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Vince Foster committed suicide or not because the facts, such as they are, are not sufficiently conclusive either way.65.117.83.34 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read "Failure of the Public Trust"? http://www.fbicover-up.com/ Watched the Hugh Sprunt series? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6540096558580418551 These are exhaustive examinations of the government's own evidence, original and fabricated, and represent professional forensic analysis of the case.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Most notably, I have never heard the possibility conjectured that he may have committed suicide elsewhere and been moved to the park, perhaps because the earlier location was embarrassing or indiscreet in some way. Appearances are important in Washington, and often more important than facts.65.117.83.34 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

These "side-theories" are, in my opinion, "fall-back propaganda" AKA "training bullshit". I.e., in order to acclimate the average prole's reptile brain into reflexively regurgitating the "suicide" mantra, a variety of variations for suicide are formulated, so that one may be pick and choose (i.e., "Did he commit suicide here or there???"), with an aura of confusion settling over the entire mess. Frequently they will be attributed to "right-wing" pundits or similar such incendiary sources, in order to prompt reflexive dismissal of any conclusion beyond rote government assertion. The main thrust of the fall-back propaganda is the shunt the idea of HOMICIDE into a hazy background while "alternative suicide possibilities" are alleged to constitute the bulk of conspiracy theories.

-- There is no hard evidence whatsoever that Foster committed suicide, or was even suicidal in the first place (e.g., the note's missing 28th piece would have contained a signature, the note did not contain Foster's fingerprints yet had Bernard Nussbaum's palmprint, and was purportedly found in a briefcase which had already been searched twice). It's impossible to shake the impression that attempts to forge a suicide note in a hurry were failing due to inability of anyone at hand (Nussbaum at least) to readily duplicate Foster's signature, and so the note was carefully torn up, with the offending piece (containing the signature) removed, with the mess then dumped into a twice-searched container which would then be searched again -- oh, and hey, lookee what we found!--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The two things that make me wonder about other possibilities are that the gun was found in his hand, which would be unlikely due to recoil, and that the bullet was never found even though a massive search was conducted by dozens of officers with metal detectors. I remember watching the news accounts of the search on TV, as I lived in DC at the time. They found some old Civil War bullets, but not the one from the gun in question.65.117.83.34 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well of course they're not going to find low-velocity assassin rounds -- because it (or they) never exited his skull (which is why there's no "gore-fountain" on the scene -- contrast to the Buddy Dwyer on-camera .38 mouth-shot (Youtube away, hey, hey!). The gun in Vince's hand was a black revolver "drop gun" composed of parts from two different weapons. The gun was free of gore, while Foster's gore-splattered glasses were found nineteen feet from the corpse. The first paramedics on the scene report no gun; they also report a second bullet wound under the ear. Yet later Lisa Foster is pressured into confirming that the gun is indeed Foster's (i.e., it's his silver automatic -- which it is obviously not). It is not unreasonable to me that a bullet wouldn't be found in the middle of the woods -- but notice how this supposed "discrepancy" is there to entice you, while the more flagrant violations of reason -- such as Vince last being seen alive inside the White House, the most heavily surveilled building in the world, yet there is no evidence of him leaving under his own power? Yeah...you're not supposed to dwell upon that.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

-- There's no way in hell that obvious BS like this could fly in the day of Youtube and cellcam (can you imagine if Patrick Knowlton had posted video of what he saw?); the Vince whack-job came at about the very tail end of a technological era in which it was even obliquely possible for such an outright fraud of an investigation to actually be attempted, let alone succeed. But, since the case is no longer "front-burner", the lie will continue to be promoted (always within the context of poo-pooing "conspiracy theories"); i.e., the new stratagem is to "coast" on the conclusion, and to ignore and laugh off anything else as "conspiracy", comfortably secure in the knowledge that the little guy can't fight city hall. I.e., the same kind of outrageous power-posturing you'd find in an obvious banana dictatorship in which the very act of being able to promulgate an obvious lie in itself is an advertisement of untouchable power.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The series of articles regarding Vince Foster are, in my opinion, some of the most embarrassing things on Wikipedia, fully calling into question its veracity on any and all issues in which government conclusions are used as a Litmus test for notability. For this article to have been renamed from "Death of..." to "Suicide of..." is an outrageous insult to the intelligence of every reader capable of anything beyond blind obeisance to government authority.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Break In

Wasn't his house broken into and/or his office? No mention in the article here. Ikilled007 11:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The FBI stood outside the door while Hillary and/or her staff committed felony evidence tampering during a homicide investigation (there is no such thing as a "suicide investigation").--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Papers taken

I believe you can find, on youtube and elsewhere, video of Hillary stating that some of her staff people went into his office and took papers. I also think it should be mentioned if this article is to include all that is know about his death. (72.199.219.10 (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

The FBI stood outside the door while Hillary and/or her staff committed felony evidence tampering during a homicide investigation (there is no such thing as a "suicide investigation").--66.41.95.121 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Can This Be Cited?

This is a very sensitive subject, and I think its impossible not to have some degree of political bias, but in the spirit of representing both sides of this death, can claims like:

Apart from the Travelgate allegations, no credible evidence or charges were ever brought forward in connection with any of these allegations.

Be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.94.190 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some yo-yo put in the bogus "Apart from the Travelgate allegations" qualifier, which in this context meant "Some propose that Foster was murdered to prevent his revealing information derogatory [...] about [...] Travelgate". I've yanked it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The two exhaustive examinations of government evidence in the Foster case are the Hugh Sprunt lecture series (Googlevideo), and Failure of the Public Trust (mentioned above, with link, else find yourself); the Failure site also hosts extensive audio commentary from Miguel Rodriguez, the resigned Starr lead investigator in the homicide investigation who has always maintained a cover-up.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

One connection that is unexplored is Foster's connection to Leo Wanta. Just search for "Vince Foster+Leo Wanta". I am unsure what to make of that, but it does not look insignificant. 121.209.56.202 (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Armistead

This article identifies Rex Armistead as a reporter. But when I look at the following news article, he is identified as "a private investigator and former Mississippi state law enforcement officer". http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/26news.html Can anyone find clarification on this? Also, the Rex Armistead article is still as yet unwritten. CosineKitty (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The truth about Foster's suicide

I will now reveal the absolute truth, as revealed to me by God Almighty: Every official investigation has forthrightly proclaimed it was suicide. They are often vague about the locale. I conclude therefore that Vince Foster committed suicide in his office in the White House basement. (You can make it sound more sinister by saying "beneath the White House".) His body was moved in an attempt to avoid embarrassment. It seams Hillary and Co didn't realize that covering up a suicide looks like you're covering up a murder, or they just would have taken their lumps with the truth.

I conclude he did it in the White House, because there was mysterious hubbub at the White House that night, before his body was found in the park, including calls to a (supposedly) non-existent phone number. I conclude it was in his office, because people tend to commit suicide (and murder) in places where they feel they have some control. He might have committed suicide in his apartment, but I don't know what would need to be covered up, though Foster's blood on Whitewater or Travelgate papers might provide a motive.

The one thing that is sure is that Foster didn't die where his body was found, because he bled out and there was little blood on the ground.

I'm not editing the article, because I don't want to get in an edit war. Others may wish to flesh out this "comspiracy theory" in the article.  Randall Bart   Talk  01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that's WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So, how did Vince Foster get a gun into the White House? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.69.132 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Credence given to official/conspiracy explanations

I've never read anything about Vince Foster before today, but from a brief review of the two articles, it seems like this article gives too much weight to the conspiracy theories concerning his death. The three official reports are given no more weight than the findings of a 'private citizen', and as much as the private citizen's theory is much more interesting and exciting than the findings of the official report. Quoting from Wikipedia's explanation of the NPOV concept, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." This seems to apply here. E. Sterling 5/19/08—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.181.96 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've tagged it as NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do government agents qualify as "reliable sources" or as "official sources"? The distinction is critical in my opinion. Anyone who trusts what government agents say is a fool. They claim inflation is currently 2.6%! Ikilled007 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I should think that the most important criterion for inclusion in the article should be whether the information is germane and is true. Take, for instance, this statement that lasted on the site for a little more than a day before it was erased without explanation:

"Three federal judges attached evidence of the murder to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's Report on Foster's death. Starr's lead investigator, Assistant U.S. Attorney Miquel Rodriguez, admits in taped telephone conversations that Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr's office covered-up the murder. (The audio is available at this web address http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/rod2.rm)The media was informed and remains silent."

That statement is extraordinarily germane to the Foster death case. The only thing that is not precisely true about it is that the judges themselves did not attach the murder evidence to Starr's report. They ordered Starr to do so over his strong objections. I could make the small correction and try to put it up, but it wouldn't last, because it is clear that truth is taking a back seat on this particular Wikipedia site. DowFinsterfaulkner (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the Miquel Rodriguez tapes at the site you give. There's a transcript at FBICover-up.com, though. WayneGoalie (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Miquel Rodriguez interview tapes can be downloaded here (links at bottom of the page): http://www.fbicover-up.com/Miquel/Miquel.htm#audio

They are ".rm" (RealMedia) files.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Suicide: Let's hope that our own deaths warrant more scrutiny and respect

With any suicide it is customary to get the opinion of the state of mind of the victim from those closest to him. In this case, that would have been Foster's wife, Lisa. But there isn't a single quote in the Wiki article attributed to Lisa Foster. How can that be? The FBI interviewed Lisa. I interviewed Lisa. And yet, not a single clue here as to what would drive such a highly successful young man, on the rise politically and monetarily to suicide. Travelgate? That's a joke. When will the truth of all this come out? Another nine years from now when the Waco files are unsealed?

Here: The actual suicide (if indeed that was the case) was over the 24 children killed at Waco. And his wife said that was the number one issue on his mind. Travelgate? Use logic here. That was a very minor scandal much like that which is faced by almost any administration. I doubt anyone even remembers Travelgate and or if anyone was ever charged or convicted. On the other hand, the deaths of those children were sealed up for 25 years for National Security reasons. Foster was publicly and privately opposed to sealing such a tragedy which occured on US soil.

This is excerpted from a contemporaneous article which cited the statements given to the FBI by Foster's widow:

Foster's widow blames his depression on the massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, according to the FBI. "Lisa Foster believes that Foster was horrified when the Branch Davidian complex burned. Foster believed that everything was his fault," the FBI wrote of their interview with Lisa Foster.

A strange form of support for that theory comes in the form of a car burglary. The July 14, 1995 News and Observer reported that White House lawyer Cheryl Mills had her car broken into after preparing for a Senate hearing on Whitewater. In addition to her wallet, the burglar stole a gym bag containing Mills' notes on the Foster affair and on Waco.

During the 1995 U.S. House hearings on Waco, Texas Rangers disclosed that when they were in dispute with the FBI about the destruction of evidence, someone in the Texas Governor's office gave them Vince Foster's phone number to contact. The hearings revealed that the only document found in Foster's Waco file was a memorandum that Foster was forwarding "Waco, the Big Lie" (a videotape charging government conspiracy) to to the Treasury Department.

Source: http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/corruption/foster.html

71.154.3.37 (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I too noticed no mention in the entry of Vince Foster's wife's statements that the number one issue on his mind before the time of his suicide was his guilt over Waco. Then I came here to Talk and found mention of Waco. Janet Reno is usually quoted as saying the buck stopped with her on Waco, she took responsibility. But Janet Reno was not USAG when the Waco Raid was carried out 28 Feb 93, nor was she USAG in the early days of the FBI siege. There was no US Attorney General in charge at the Dept of Justice when Waco started: the functions of USAG were being carried out at that time by Rose Law Firm alumni Vince Foster, Webster Hubbell and Hillary Clinton. Some of the decisions at that time (for instance, to go ahead with the raid after knowing the element of surprise had been lost) might very well have been on Vince Foster's mind at the time of his suicide. If the fact that Foster agonized over Waco is not acknowledged, how can the questions about his death be answered, one way or the other? Naaman Brown (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lisa foster claimed that the black revolver in Foster's hand was her husband's gun (which was actually a silver automatic); therefore Lisa cannot be considered a reliable source regarding anything. It is reasonable to assume that she was coerced into saying so, and hence has been coerced into additionally speculating other facets of propaganda regarding her husband's mysterious death.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's the information?

The circumstances of the incident, including controversial evidence, should be described. As it stands, there's little there to help the reader understand why some believe it wasn't suicide. 71.203.125.108 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because this entire "re-named article" is pure, concentrated propaganda puked straight out of hired whitewash boy Kenneth Starr, whose lead investigator quit (and says Foster was murdered). First-on-scene paramedics report no gun and no car keys. Foster's glasses were nineteen feet from the body, yet spattered with blood (while the gun later photographed in his hand, and allegedly inside his mouth when fired, was not covered in blood). Dr. Haut's initial autopsy found two different-caliber bullet wounds. The black revolver was obviously not Foster's silver automatic, yet Lisa was pressured into saying it was. FBI agents stood outside Foster's White House office while Hillary committed felony evidence-tampering by ransacking his office; the FBI harassed Fort Marcy Park witness Patrick Knowlton. Foster's fingerprints were not found on the claimed "suicide note" (torn into pieces, missing the one which would have contained a signature, and "found" in a briefcase already searched previously), yet Bernie Nussbaum's palmprint was. The first words, after he heard about Foster, out of Clinton's Arkansas campaign manager Jerry Parks were, "I'm next" (he was later murdered in broad daylight in Little Rock).

"Don't believe a word you hear. It was not suicide." - -Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell, 7/20/93, cited in Esquire, 11/93. (Hubbell was then repeatedly reamed and spent much of the next several years in prison with, guess who -- Kenneth Starr -- leading various prosecutions (and being overruled 8-1 by the Supreme Court on one of them). I surmise Hubbell was one of the few Clinton associates who was too important or "big-name" at the time for the Arkansas Mafia to snuff like Jerry.)----66.41.95.121 (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Censorship via spurious assertion of WP:RS and intimidation of editors

In answer to the user above ("Where's the information", my answer being: "It's been flushed down the toilet"), I relay the following from my talk page:

This is your last warning; the next time you add non-reliably-sourced material, as you did at Ken Starr, Vince Foster, and Suicide of Vince Foster, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. "Failure of the Public Trust" is self-published, and neither World Net Daily nor AIM are reliable sources. Please, read WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:NEWSORG, and WP:SOURCES. (I note from your previous blocks that you're already aware of WP:3RR.) AV3000 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Av3000, would it be possible for you and I to have an intelligent conversation -- or must it proceed straightaway to histrionic spasms of dire, impending doom delivered at the edict of Big Cheeses wielding Olympian power? Several points:

1) The matter of WND is not as cut-and-dried as I imagine you would like the casual browser of this user-talk page to instantly surmise. For example, the summation of your link to the WND noticeboard is, quoting, with weasel words bold-faced by me: "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material....

-- The weasel words indicate a LACK of clear consensus, while the following: "...individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided.}" explicitly CONFIRMS a lack of consensus.

2) You have not provided any backing to maintain that AIM is NRS either -- for the sake of argument, I shall assume that a page exists within the Byzantine depths of the Noticeboard, but will also assume that it is just as ambiguous and shot full of self-contradictions, weasel words, and completely unveiled bad motives as the WND one.

3) Miquel Rodriguez is more than a reliable source -- he is, in fact, a primary source; it is not possible for you to logically maintain that the direct audio commentary of Kenneth Starr's former lead investigator in the Foster death is not pertinent because it is hosted by AIM -- unless you're maintaining that it's faked or distorted in some way. -- Are you?

4) Similarly, the FOIA lawsuit (which went all the way to the Supreme Court) by attorney Allen Favish is, by definition, noteworthy. With the lawsuit's author rendered noteworthy on the subject material, then any media organ directly quoting him must also be regarded as reliable (if only situationally) -- unless, once again, you're maintaining that they're lying -- and I do not believe you are prepared to insist upon such.

5) Regarding Failure of the Public Trust -- Patrick J. Knowlton, a primary witness in Fort Marcy Park, is by definition noteworthy and a reputable source of his own disagreement with factual statements asserted in the Starr Report, as is, by subsequent logical extension, his other written commentary on the subject (he shares author credit of Failure of the Public Trust with his attorney John Clarke and researcher Hugh Turley), in re: WP:SPS "....Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." -- The FBI, which interviewed him, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which heard Knowlton's case for submission of an "Addendum" to the Starr Report, qualify in conferring notability.

6) The proper place for this discussion is the talk pages of the articles themselves.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Intense fear by Foster reported by his wife

I cannot cite a source of a report by Foster's wife that she knew something was wrong because he was so afraid that she had to get into bed with him and hold him so he could sleep.

Intense unattributed fear is one outcome of a Subliminal Distraction exposure mental break. The same level of fear appears in the suicide note of Mark Barton, Atlanta day trader killer. Evidence is available that Barton had Subliminal Distraction exposure but no such information exists for Foster. I would appreciate a head's up if you have the source for her statement. Visit VisionAndPsychosis.Net and use the Contact Researcher link.

This problem requires a location or locations for exposure so it can be investigated and confirmed or eliminated. It is possible to interview others who worked with him or interview his wife for the information to confirm this.

I am the Copyright holder for information from my site.

L K Tucker 24.42.213.45 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

QUESTION OF RELIABILITY I agree whole heartedly with E. Sterling. I go a step further and call the articles reliability and objectivity into question. Not only is the breakin of Foster's office, which has been well documented, not mentioned, but many paragraphs are devoted to conspiracy theory books written by authors of very dubious credentials. I'm not usually this critical, but I haven't seen anything this biased since I saw the Oliver Stone movie JFK. I suggest that the sections under "unofficial findings" be removed. AlRonnfeldt (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlRonnfeldt (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm> I gather this "intense fear" had the same origin as that which prompted her to lie about the color of her husband's silver gun so it would match that of the black "drop" piece photographed next to his corpse. <bronx cheer> ...The day upon which future generations deem Wikepedia as finally "arriving" as a credible factual venue outside of purely scientific disciplines will be arrived at when the most odious of blatant contemporary political cover-ups is finally expunged from its pages -- of which Foster's "suicide" is one of the most prominant, and Litmus, examples.--Mike18xx (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgery

[1] Three handwriting experts said the note was a forgery. Why no mention of this? Thismightbezach (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracies in proportion

With no political axe to grind, I added this para to the lede, purely because I felt it needed lengthening:

Some have claimed that his body was dumped in the park, following either an assassination or suicide in a location that President Clinton did not want revealed. Much of the evidence for these theories was supplied by right-wing groups, and was discredited by whistleblower David Brock, who had been connected with the anti-Clinton propaganda mission, known as the Arkansas Project.

It was promptly deleted by Froglich, who declared it to be a ‘political diatribe’, when it was simply a summary of the material in the main article. At that rate, Froglich must have classified most of this article as a ‘political diatribe’ (or POV, as we normally put it), and he should start by deleting those parts. He would then be justified in reverting the lede to reflect the new, shortened article. Valetude (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You claim not to have an axe to grind, yet are attempting to smuggle the loaded POV term "right-wing" into the article. Aside from that, your assertions were erroneous anyway, as the main bodies of "conspiracy theory" research into the Foster case stem from the work of Hugh Sprunt, Hugh Turley, and Miguel Rodgriguez (see the rest of the Talk page above). None of these people are "right wing" politically. (Neither, for that matter, is Michael Rivero, the internet blogger who first noticed the discrepancy between the black revolver in an ABC News photo and the silver automatic the man owned.) *Actual* "right-wing" luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh shilled the Starr Report, as did the rank-and-file Republican political establishment (which basically coughed nervously and then leapt at the salacious Lewinsky thing instead). By the way, Brock went on to play an integral part in the socialist front-group Media Matters, so he was hardly "right-wing" either.--Froglich (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking

Sourced section restored to stauts quo per WP:BRD - Now, let's discuss the issues with the section. Scr★pIron^IV 19:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

1, that's not the status quo. That was a paragraph added relatively recently (at least for a sparsely edited article) by an IP address a few months ago. See https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Suicide_of_Vince_Foster&diff=prev&oldid=673482170

2, this content is misplaced. The structure of the article is "suicide note, official explanation, tin-foil hat conspiracy theories." This IP addy has added material that contradicts the mainstream explanation before it's even been made. It should, if included in the article at all, go in the unofficial explanations / fringe theories section, per WP:FRINGE. (I hope that even fans of the unofficial explanation can agree the unofficial explanation is unofficial for a reason - all the "responsible" agencies agree it was a suicide! They'd say it was a cover-up of course, but it's not controversial that's what they *said*.)

3, this content is sheer WP:OR. They're citing an article attacking *one specific person* on a totally different issue (Bush & the National Guard), and assuming the criticism is relevant there. It's not even a very good criticism! It's misleading from no less than 2 perspectives: "Doesn't have credential X" is an extremely bad & gamable attack (no expert has every single credential you might demand, and there are people with credentials who are total idiots and wrong; see credentialism), and even IF it was correct, the fact that one particular expert is unreliable says literally nothing about what the consensus is. If out of 1000 scientists, 998 believe in global warming, is it relevant if 1 of those 998 is a total fraud? Fine, he believes in global warming for the wrong reasons and doesn't have a Ph.D, but what about the 997 other scientists saying the same thing?

4, WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Are you seriously going to say we should stick "citizen news.net" in front of the FBI & DOJ as pride of place? I can get you some citizen news that describes secret death rays the US is testing in Iraq if you want. If we're going to cast doubt on the suicide note, let's have it from some ironclad sources. It is on the editor inserting the content to provide such sources.

ScrapIron, please tell me you actually read the sources. If you didn't, go read them right now. This content is a perfect example of nuke-on-sight-from-orbit for multiple reasons. I'm shocked we even have to have this conversation. SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have read the sources. There are two statements being made, both appropriately sourced. The first states that there were three refutations of the validity of the handwriting on the note. The second states that the individual hired by the Clintons to examine the note is not credentialled. Neither of these statements exists in a vacuum, there is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in the content of the statements. Neutral statements, left up to the reader to interpret. I have no issues with the content being moved, but we don't ignore sourced statements entirely. Certainly, you know that the status quo means the state of the article prior to Bold revision. It is controversial material, but it has been reported. It does not deserve prominence, but it does deserve existence. Please restore the content, and insert in in the location of your choosing, so it does not enjoy "pride of place" as you put it. Scr★pIron^IV 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No. While the article would be slightly better if the content was moved to the "unofficial" section rather than mentioned directly under the suicide note, it'd be better still with it removed altogether. citizenwells.net is a self-published blog of citizen news; it is not an appropriate source, especially for accusations of this magnitude. See WP:RS. It's especially bad since the phrasing implies that these 3 experts are "right." Let's assume for a moment that our source is correct (not in any way guaranteed). Well... what about the experts the FBI employed? The Department of Justice? Why exactly are we putting the focus on these 3 experts and not the other experts involved? Well, because a random blog says so. The second statement is WP:OR, I'm sorry. It says *nothing* about his work on Vince Foster, and it's a passing mention, hardly in-depth reporting. The most useful sources are the ones which are discussing these issues in the context of Vince Foster. Using a passing reference on someone of unclear notability (again, the fact we discuss this at all implies that one random handwriting expert is somehow "key" to the investigation) is trouble. Heck, do we even have a reference that this fellow was hired by the Clintons?

This section doesn't deserve existence. If you really would like to fight for it, get some better sources. Alternatively if you think I'm just crazy, I'm happy if you want to ask for a 3rd opinion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the like. SnowFire (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, you could have re-opened the discussion if you were just going to revert me quietly but without the automated notice. I guess I'll be the one to go to a noticeboard, then. I've pinged WP:FTN. SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I restored it to the status quo, and I waited a long while to do so. Intervening edits prevented an actual "pinged" undo. You would not be accusing me of a conspiracy, would you? :-D Scr★pIron^IV 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that it'd have been nice if you'd responded here on the talk page first, even if just to say "You're just all wrong and this discussion isn't fruitful." Editors who want text to be in the article has the onus on them to defend it, or else it's removed.

As for your comment on the Noticeboard - yes, more sources would help! Although ideally we'd need better sources. And... the claims therein would need to be given the proper context, since there's some plain disagreements on natures of fact where both sides can't be right at once. For example, the relevance of Marcel Matley is just not clear at the moment. There are 0 sources actually tying him to the official investigation, and if he was part of the official investigation, whether he was a particularly important or crucial part. So even if we found a source that attacked Matley's work on Vince Foster from a pro-conspiracy source, we'd still need some reason to think this is a relevant criticism, if that makes any sense. If somebody said that the space program was a hoax because Ottawa is the capital of Canada, well, even if the 2nd fact is true, it doesn't particularly matter. SnowFire (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I said it above, but just to repeat since you brought up "Restoring the status quo" again: this section isn't particularly status-quoy and was added comparatively recently by an anonymous IP address. SnowFire (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Although, looking more closely - you edited the article again very shortly after the IP addy, within hours. Did you add it while accidentally logged out? You should have said so, I'd have taken a different tack if so. Anyway there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BRD here. The "D" is discuss. You can't keep material without being willing to defend it & discuss it - and, when discussion fails, to escalate to other forms of dispute resolution. SnowFire (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not edited logged out (to my knowledge) since I registered a year ago. I do know that the IP was not me. Scr★pIron^IV 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of this I do understand, and I flit among so many articles; mostly anti-vandalism work. Removing sourced content is tricky, particularly if it benefits people in power. At the time, I found more than a few sources - Philly.com. The Independent, NewsMax, the book "Dead Wrong" by Richard Belzer, even a transcript of Unsolved Mysteries that interviewed those four specific individuals. Not trying to be contentious here. Not all sources are equal, and I certainly don't want to bring politics into it. But enough people have made those statements, they have been reported widely enough, and even the individuals in question have appeared on television to make their statements. At some point, enough reporting on a topic is enough to be reported. I am not a conspiracy theorist; heck I just found myself reverted on Nordic Aliens for removal of an unsourced drawing of an alien... So, when I forgot about this article, I just forgot about it for a while. It does not need to be prominent, but it should be there somewhere. Scr★pIron^IV 20:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to including material about conspiracy allegations that are reported on in reliable secondary sources. I do think we need to be careful that we don't piece together material to prop up or knock down any particular person who is making or refuting allegations. - Location (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(de-indent) Sure, if referenced to *notable* pro-conspiracy sources (e.g. "Dead Wrong" perhaps), it's fine to include... in the conspiracy theories section, solely as a notable attack. To be included anywhere else will require more "neutral" sources backing it up.

As for the 3 handwriting experts, the problem is that this should not be portrayed as an argument-winning gotcha for the "neutral" account: it is a bit of circumstantial weirdness. As one editor put it, first off, the "experts" might just be plain wrong. Handwriting analysis isn't the most accurate of sciences. But let's say they're right, and the note doesn't match Foster's usual handwriting. Well... so what. Handwriting analysis can only give a guess at the *average* case, not any one specific case. Maybe the suicidal Foster was very nervous and in a deranged state of mind. Maybe Foster intentionally wrote in a different style. Maybe - and there is absolutely no evidence of this - he asked a friend to write the note for him. Unlikely? Sure, but so is the note being a plant by some kind of Clinton assassin, of which there is also absolutely no evidence. SnowFire (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding via a request for third opinion placed on WP:FTN. I believe this edit (originally added July 28, 2015 with this edit) should be reverted. The material reinserted is cited to http://citizenwells.net/2015/04/29/vince-foster-note-fake-alleged-suicide-note-not-in-fosters-handwriting-three-experts-analyzed-christopher-ruddy-newsmax-october-25-1995-flimsy-investigation-into-note-parallels-investigation-of/ which is not a reliable source and http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/09/15/expanding-on-expert-in-cbs-memo-flap.html which violates WP:SYNTH in that it does not discuss Vince Foster. Claims that the note is not authentic and refutations of those claims need to be documented in reliable secondary sources. - Location (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Who TF is Patrick Knowlton

I just rewrote the 2nd paragraph of the "conspiracy theory" section after reading it and comparing it to the document it's referenced by, so that it now is more clear and congruous. However after finishing just now, I realized the subject, Patrick Knowlton, is never before or after mentioned anywhere in the article. And in that paragraph, he is brought up with zero introduction as to who he is or why he's being talked about. Who the hell wrote this section originally?? -Laced 47.33.95.202 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You raise a good question. Patrick Knowlton was a Whitewater grand jury witness that had stopped at Fort Marcy Park where Vince Foster's body was found, at the time that Foster was already officially dead. Knowlton came forward as soon as the news reported Foster died there to report what he had seen. Knowlton did not got up into the park and see Foster's body. He did see an old, early 80's brown Honda in the parking lot with Arkansas license plates. This was important because it was not the newer 1989 gray Honda owned by the Foster family. Other witnesses also saw this brown Honda. FBI agents falsified Knowlton's FBI interview report make it appear he saw Foster"s Honda. He was later the victim of witness intimidation and sued for violation of his civil rights. Knowlton was successful in adding 20 pages of evidence of a cover-up as part of the Independent Counsel's Report over the objection of Ken Starr. A sentence has been added to the article to introduce Knowlton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olga1518 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Article appears to violate Neutral Point of View policy

1. Relies heavily on documents supporting author's point of view; while dismissing opposing points of view 2. Ignores questions regarding authenticity of resignation/suicide note 3. General tone of article is dismissive of the possibility of alternate points of view

Rfax99 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Subject Title

This article, and this talk page, is about the Death of Vince Foster, not specifically 'suicide'. Therefore its title is most peculiar and should be altered to the Death of Vince Foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by James spencer moulson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)