Jump to content

Talk:Gary Webb: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Why: new section
Tag: Reverted
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 51.252.33.253 - "Why: new section"
Tag: Reverted
Line 54: Line 54:
== Why ==
== Why ==


No <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/51.252.33.253|51.252.33.253]] ([[User talk:51.252.33.253#top|talk]]) 08:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
No

Revision as of 08:14, 16 June 2022

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

"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 (talkcontribs)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.252.33.253 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]