This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suicide of Vince Foster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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' 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)
That's the case here also. 65.117.83.34 ( talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (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)
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)
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)
Thank you. Will you join me, years later, as I attempt to slowly, carefully, step-by-step correct the record? I have barely stuck my toe in the water, and a couple of high-and-mighty Wikipedia administrators have already tried to silence me as I removed unquestionable falsehooods ("six investigations" "lifelong conservative") - see the edit record. There is no question that the appropriate title of this article should be "Death of...", not "Suicide of...", and the rest of the work is a journalistic atrocity as well. I do believe, though, that our opposition is wholly ignorant of the facts here, and not intentionally suborning falsehoods. Let's attempt to educate them. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't his house broken into and/or his office? No mention in the article here. Ikilled007 11:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Go enter that information, please! Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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'm glad to find I'm not the only one who finds this Wikipedia article to be a journalistic atrocity. Anyone who bothers to look past the headlines will see that Vince Foster did NOT commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park. Please join me in my effort to slowly turn this thing around in favor of the truth. Let us educate the masses. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
Don't blame Lisa Foster for the gun misidentification. The FBI showed her a picture of the wrong gun. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
This article is a journalistic atrocity, propagated by ignoramuses. I seek to supply the truth. Join me please. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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:
Mike, I'm late to the party, but God bless you! Keep fighting the good fight. I'm working on it, too. Please join me in trying to turn this article, a journalistic atrocity in its current form, into something resembling the truth. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
Al Ronnfeldt: Thank you. You expressed my feelings better than I could have. This article in its current form is a journalistic atrocity. Please help me as I try to educate the well-meaning, ignorant masses. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Um, I may have gotten confused in my prior comment. Rereading this all a day later, I'm not quite sure what good ol' Al is saying. But Mike, you sure have it right.
Vcuttolo ( talk) 11:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
[1] Three handwriting experts said the note was a forgery. Why no mention of this? Thismightbezach ( talk) 21:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hell of a question. Please insert it! Let's get the truth out. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
With no political axe to grind, I added this para to the lede, purely because I felt it needed lengthening:
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)
Thank you, Froglich. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
Three top-notch handwriting experts concluded the note was a forgery. Those three had approx 100 years experience between them. I suspect "nervous handwriting" is a topic they may have encountered before. In fact, that was likely covered in their basic, undergraduate studies....who's the conspiracy theorist now? Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
And unfortunately removed since then. Join me please in fixing the journalistic atrocity this article represents in its current state. All help appreciated. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
Absolutely true, every word you wrote. Please help fix what is currently a journalistic atrocity. Let us educate the ignorant and clean up this mess. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
OF COURSE it should be titled "Death of..", not "Suicide of...". I'm new here, and dreadfully in over my head on the ways of Wikipedia. But I want to fight the good fight and clean up this article from the journalistic atrocity it currently is. Please help! Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
When did he die. Where did he die. How did he die. Why did he die. This retarded article doesn't even attempt to answer any of these simple, common sense and basic questions. 66.25.171.16 ( talk) 21:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is a journalistic atrocity. Please help - I'm new here, not overly familiar with the ways of Wikipedia, but I want to fix this dreadful mess of an article. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is being edited to hell. It now makes zero sense to a casual reader with nothing but loads of conflicting material. Info needs to be appropriately cited and clarified, as in its current state, it's just a pile of hot garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.185.226 ( talk) 02:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. This is why the first step should be to remove all the garbage. Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to this article so everything needs really good sources. Primary sources (like Starr's report) are not enough. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
And one thing that should absolutely NOT be done is for the article to spend so much space on various fringe conspiracy theories so that they overshadow the rest of the article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Froglich. Volunteer Marek is a cancer on Wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with all but the most basic ways of Wikipedia, but I want to try to slowly turn this journalistic atrocity of an article around toward the truth. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
"A book by Christopher Andersen entitled Bill and Hillary: The Marriage claims that Foster and Hillary Clinton were involved in an affair that led to Foster's death. [1]"
In Salon, Jake Tapper writes: "Andersen dishes like a catty high school girl holding forth in the lunchroom, with little corroborating evidence for his claims, implied or otherwise." [2] Entertainment weekly describes the book as "disenguous" and "[w]ritten to make big headlines and fast money, Bill and Hillary is a prime example of a kind of opportunistic celebrity muckraking – sometimes known as selling people out – that has become junky big business ....", noting Andersen "does that insidious, breezy thing of reconstructing extemporaneous conversations he couldn’t possibly have heard." [3] According to People, "Andersen, clearly no fan of the First Couple, seizes on sleaze too much and with too little attribution. Titillating, perhaps, but in the end the book is merely banal,..." [4] -And this from a publication for which he used to write. Andersen's books sell well, but so do supermarket tabloids; his just have better binding. Mannanan51 ( talk) 01:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
References
This article says there were 6 official investigations, but the "Vince Foster" page says 5. Anyone know which it is? 69.142.70.108 ( talk) 21:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Really 1, but the highest conceivable number is 5. The Park Police, Robert Fiske, and Ken Starr investigations were performed by the same FBI -approved folks. The two congressional investigations were of the behavior of the Park Police, not of the overall case. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the article back to its title since 2008, since there appears to have been no attempt at consensus for this move on the article talkpage, and the move was based on disputed material since removed by other editors. Please discuss. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone remotely familiar with the facts of this case understands this article should be entitled "Death of....", not "Suicide of...". This article, as it currently exists, is a total embarassment, easily the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Most of this article could be retitled "Vince Foster Conspiracy Theories" - the only section (other than the lead) which speaks directly to the subject is the content of the suicide note. Could we restructure the article such that the mainstream views Vince Foster's suicide are represented at the top, and the alternative views are given second billing? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Among incurious and uninterested (not to be confused with disinterested) parties, suicide is the default assumption. However, anong those who have followed the case, the idea that Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park is risible. Among the "name" journalists who agree (or agreed - some are no longer alive) that the official version of suicide is obviously problematic - Robert Novak, Philip Weiss, William Safire, Richard Brookhiser, Christopher Hitchens, John O'Sullivan, Roger Morris, Sam Smith, and Thomas Sowell. Non-journalists who doubt the official story include William Sessions, who led the FBI under three presidents, Vincent J. Scalice, homicide detective for the NYPD who worked with the FBI on both the JFK and MLK assassinations, worked with the US House of Representatives on the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and whose report on Foster explains why the body was undoubtedly moved, and why he was likely murdered, Hugh Sprunt, who has two degrees from MIT and another two from Stanford, who wrote a report that concluded that Foster committing suicide in Fort Marcy Park was a near-impossible scenario, and numerous other luminaries. Additionally, according to the Philip Weiss piece in the NYT Magazine, only 35% of 1000 people polled back when this was in the news believed that Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park....The construction of this article as it currently stands is as far from the truth as can be imagined. It is certainly the worst thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned about this edit, which purports (through insinuation) to suggest that at least one government lawywer interfered with evidence or obstructed justice in one way.
As currently written this is ambiguous. It could be read to imply that a government lawyer fabricated the evidence or partially destroyed the evidence in order to obstruct an investigation. My reading of what the NY times actually reported was that the lawyer didn't give the police a detailed description of Foster's files (this omitting the potentially embarrasing information
And even if my own interpretation of the story is way off base - can we correct this to not include these sorts of details as vague insinuations. This has become WP:SYNTH and gives undue weight to conspiratorial POV which is not actually what the article states. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 11:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I am removing the following section (again):
Per the recent discussion at WP:RSN, wnd.com and citizenwells.net are not reliable sources. The NYT only gives a cursory mention to Rodriguez in the context of Ruddy's book: "The only skeptical insider Ruddy discusses at length is Miguel Rodriguez, an assistant United States attorney hired by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, after he took over from Fiske in the fall of 1994. Ruddy calls Rodriguez a hero who wanted to get to the bottom of things, but says that a stream of leaks from within the investigation, and the refusal to appoint a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts, caused Rodriguez to quit." If this is the only reliable secondary source discussing Rodriguez's views, then we shouldn't be building a separate section for those views per WP:UNDUE. Italicizing a quote from a primary source published in an unreliable source is another example of WP:CHERRYPICKING and also fails per WP:UNDUE. - Location ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Well, let's see who does "believe this shit". Here is a partial list of journalists who, unlike you apparently, actually spent time researching the case, and came to the realization that Vince Foster certainly did NOT commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park, and likely did not commit suicide at all: Richard Brookhiser, Christopher Hitchens, William Safire, Philip Weiss, Roger Morris, John O'Sullivan, Thomas Sowell, Sam Smith, and Robert Novak. That's just the journalistic side of things. There is also William Sessions, who headed the FBI under three presidents. Vincent Scalice, a former NYPD homicide detective who worked with the FBI on the MLK assassination, and with both the FBI and the US House of Representatives on the JFK assassination. Scalice did his own report on Foster, and reached conclusions opposite to Starr's. Newt Gingrich, who while Speaker of the House said one would have to be "brain dead" to believe that Foster killed himself in Fort Marcy Park. I will ask you to find any such group supporting the Sandy Hook conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, hell, ANY conspiracy. See, the term "conspiracy" is entirely inappropriate when you have the facts on your side. Despite the heavyhandedness the Clintons used to threaten the reputations of anyone who questioned the official Foster story (are you familiar with their 331 page "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce"? They wrote it, I didn't) a handful of courageous folks, some of whom are mentioned above, risked ridicule from the likes of yourself and expressed their opinions publicly. On top of all that we have Miquel (or Miguel; spellings differ) Rodriguez, who was drummed out of the investigation for not toeing to the preordained conclusion. We also have the three judge panel who mandated the attachment of the 20 page Knowles/Clarke appendix to Starr's report, an appendix which renders everything written in the main report into a joke. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard filed story after story about this in the Sunday London Telegraph, for whom he was Washington BUREAU CHIEF. Evans-Pritchard had an ongoing 35+ year career writing first for the Economist and currently for the Telegraph, two of the most respected publications in the Western world. Those who try to dismiss the evidence as a "conspiracy theory" have no idea what to do with Evans-Pritchard, who wrote a book about three scandals that happened under Bill Clinton's watch, one of which was the Foster case. As to Starr, the left has never comprehended why his approval rating was lower than was Saddam Hussein's (really, no joke) in the late 1990s. Liberals despised him for going after Bill Clinton on the sex-related stuff, conservatives knew that his Washington-based team utterly ignored everything else. Those folks were part of the permanent bureaucracy of Washington, the one that barely changes when administrations do. If Starr was as implacable a Clinton foe as Bill Clinton and his supporters portrayed, why did his people fight tooth-and-nail to bury Patrick Knowlton? Hugh Sprunt has two degrees from MIT, and another two from Stanford. (Pity his poor wife, who only has one puny MIT degree.) Sprunt, when not making gobs of money as a successful tax attorney or whatever, realized that the official Foster story was obvious nonsense, and wrote a 200 page report responding to the official version. Try reading it. Or Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Or DCDave, who has covered this extensively and rather brilliantly online (although I am not on board with everything he espouses on non-Foster related items). It is easy to listen to the mainstream media, who ran away from this under threat of Clinton defamation, long before they had a chance to ascertain the truth for themselves. But the two sides are there for you to see for yourself. I can assure you that Sandy Hook was real, the US government (Israel, too) had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, and the moon landing did not happen on a sound stage. I even believe that only one person went to Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963, with the intent on shooting JFK, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald. I also believe that the official Foster story is untrue, because all the evidence shows it to be untrue. Please find out for yourself. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with more expertise than I will know what to do with the fact that the Link to Note #14 (Lori Leibovich, "Why Vincent Foster can't rest in peace", Salon.com, May 28, 1998.) is no longer maintained on the Salon.com web site. Thanks! Jgmccue ( talk) 15:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I am opening this page because the person named in the subject line asked me to, although I do not understand why this is necessary. The entire "Suicide of Vince Foster" article is nothing short of a journalistic atrocity. I made the slightest inprovement at the edges, removing obviously unreliable or outright false information, yet my edit was immediately undone, for reasons that escape me. I explained my justifications for my rather solid edits exactly where I am supposed to, in the box provided for explaining the justification for edits. I did run out of space to provide more sources, but I think 5 should be plenty. In that the information I removed had supplied NO sources, are we not getting this backwards? Vcuttolo ( talk) 23:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The current lede reads
Is there any doubt it was suicide? As far as I know, that's completely unambiguous, but this phrasing heavily implies that there's some uncertainty.
I propose eliminating the weasel-wording in favor of a straightforward statement, as well as perhaps adding some context as to why there's a Wikipedia article about it in the first place. -- Calton | Talk 05:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suicide of Vince Foster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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' 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)
That's the case here also. 65.117.83.34 ( talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007 (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)
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)
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)
Thank you. Will you join me, years later, as I attempt to slowly, carefully, step-by-step correct the record? I have barely stuck my toe in the water, and a couple of high-and-mighty Wikipedia administrators have already tried to silence me as I removed unquestionable falsehooods ("six investigations" "lifelong conservative") - see the edit record. There is no question that the appropriate title of this article should be "Death of...", not "Suicide of...", and the rest of the work is a journalistic atrocity as well. I do believe, though, that our opposition is wholly ignorant of the facts here, and not intentionally suborning falsehoods. Let's attempt to educate them. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't his house broken into and/or his office? No mention in the article here. Ikilled007 11:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Go enter that information, please! Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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'm glad to find I'm not the only one who finds this Wikipedia article to be a journalistic atrocity. Anyone who bothers to look past the headlines will see that Vince Foster did NOT commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park. Please join me in my effort to slowly turn this thing around in favor of the truth. Let us educate the masses. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
Don't blame Lisa Foster for the gun misidentification. The FBI showed her a picture of the wrong gun. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
This article is a journalistic atrocity, propagated by ignoramuses. I seek to supply the truth. Join me please. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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:
Mike, I'm late to the party, but God bless you! Keep fighting the good fight. I'm working on it, too. Please join me in trying to turn this article, a journalistic atrocity in its current form, into something resembling the truth. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
Al Ronnfeldt: Thank you. You expressed my feelings better than I could have. This article in its current form is a journalistic atrocity. Please help me as I try to educate the well-meaning, ignorant masses. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Um, I may have gotten confused in my prior comment. Rereading this all a day later, I'm not quite sure what good ol' Al is saying. But Mike, you sure have it right.
Vcuttolo ( talk) 11:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
[1] Three handwriting experts said the note was a forgery. Why no mention of this? Thismightbezach ( talk) 21:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hell of a question. Please insert it! Let's get the truth out. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
With no political axe to grind, I added this para to the lede, purely because I felt it needed lengthening:
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)
Thank you, Froglich. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
Three top-notch handwriting experts concluded the note was a forgery. Those three had approx 100 years experience between them. I suspect "nervous handwriting" is a topic they may have encountered before. In fact, that was likely covered in their basic, undergraduate studies....who's the conspiracy theorist now? Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
And unfortunately removed since then. Join me please in fixing the journalistic atrocity this article represents in its current state. All help appreciated. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
Absolutely true, every word you wrote. Please help fix what is currently a journalistic atrocity. Let us educate the ignorant and clean up this mess. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
OF COURSE it should be titled "Death of..", not "Suicide of...". I'm new here, and dreadfully in over my head on the ways of Wikipedia. But I want to fight the good fight and clean up this article from the journalistic atrocity it currently is. Please help! Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
When did he die. Where did he die. How did he die. Why did he die. This retarded article doesn't even attempt to answer any of these simple, common sense and basic questions. 66.25.171.16 ( talk) 21:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is a journalistic atrocity. Please help - I'm new here, not overly familiar with the ways of Wikipedia, but I want to fix this dreadful mess of an article. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is being edited to hell. It now makes zero sense to a casual reader with nothing but loads of conflicting material. Info needs to be appropriately cited and clarified, as in its current state, it's just a pile of hot garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.185.226 ( talk) 02:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. This is why the first step should be to remove all the garbage. Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to this article so everything needs really good sources. Primary sources (like Starr's report) are not enough. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
And one thing that should absolutely NOT be done is for the article to spend so much space on various fringe conspiracy theories so that they overshadow the rest of the article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Froglich. Volunteer Marek is a cancer on Wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with all but the most basic ways of Wikipedia, but I want to try to slowly turn this journalistic atrocity of an article around toward the truth. Vcuttolo ( talk) 21:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
"A book by Christopher Andersen entitled Bill and Hillary: The Marriage claims that Foster and Hillary Clinton were involved in an affair that led to Foster's death. [1]"
In Salon, Jake Tapper writes: "Andersen dishes like a catty high school girl holding forth in the lunchroom, with little corroborating evidence for his claims, implied or otherwise." [2] Entertainment weekly describes the book as "disenguous" and "[w]ritten to make big headlines and fast money, Bill and Hillary is a prime example of a kind of opportunistic celebrity muckraking – sometimes known as selling people out – that has become junky big business ....", noting Andersen "does that insidious, breezy thing of reconstructing extemporaneous conversations he couldn’t possibly have heard." [3] According to People, "Andersen, clearly no fan of the First Couple, seizes on sleaze too much and with too little attribution. Titillating, perhaps, but in the end the book is merely banal,..." [4] -And this from a publication for which he used to write. Andersen's books sell well, but so do supermarket tabloids; his just have better binding. Mannanan51 ( talk) 01:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
References
This article says there were 6 official investigations, but the "Vince Foster" page says 5. Anyone know which it is? 69.142.70.108 ( talk) 21:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Really 1, but the highest conceivable number is 5. The Park Police, Robert Fiske, and Ken Starr investigations were performed by the same FBI -approved folks. The two congressional investigations were of the behavior of the Park Police, not of the overall case. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the article back to its title since 2008, since there appears to have been no attempt at consensus for this move on the article talkpage, and the move was based on disputed material since removed by other editors. Please discuss. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone remotely familiar with the facts of this case understands this article should be entitled "Death of....", not "Suicide of...". This article, as it currently exists, is a total embarassment, easily the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Most of this article could be retitled "Vince Foster Conspiracy Theories" - the only section (other than the lead) which speaks directly to the subject is the content of the suicide note. Could we restructure the article such that the mainstream views Vince Foster's suicide are represented at the top, and the alternative views are given second billing? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Among incurious and uninterested (not to be confused with disinterested) parties, suicide is the default assumption. However, anong those who have followed the case, the idea that Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park is risible. Among the "name" journalists who agree (or agreed - some are no longer alive) that the official version of suicide is obviously problematic - Robert Novak, Philip Weiss, William Safire, Richard Brookhiser, Christopher Hitchens, John O'Sullivan, Roger Morris, Sam Smith, and Thomas Sowell. Non-journalists who doubt the official story include William Sessions, who led the FBI under three presidents, Vincent J. Scalice, homicide detective for the NYPD who worked with the FBI on both the JFK and MLK assassinations, worked with the US House of Representatives on the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and whose report on Foster explains why the body was undoubtedly moved, and why he was likely murdered, Hugh Sprunt, who has two degrees from MIT and another two from Stanford, who wrote a report that concluded that Foster committing suicide in Fort Marcy Park was a near-impossible scenario, and numerous other luminaries. Additionally, according to the Philip Weiss piece in the NYT Magazine, only 35% of 1000 people polled back when this was in the news believed that Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park....The construction of this article as it currently stands is as far from the truth as can be imagined. It is certainly the worst thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned about this edit, which purports (through insinuation) to suggest that at least one government lawywer interfered with evidence or obstructed justice in one way.
As currently written this is ambiguous. It could be read to imply that a government lawyer fabricated the evidence or partially destroyed the evidence in order to obstruct an investigation. My reading of what the NY times actually reported was that the lawyer didn't give the police a detailed description of Foster's files (this omitting the potentially embarrasing information
And even if my own interpretation of the story is way off base - can we correct this to not include these sorts of details as vague insinuations. This has become WP:SYNTH and gives undue weight to conspiratorial POV which is not actually what the article states. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 11:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I am removing the following section (again):
Per the recent discussion at WP:RSN, wnd.com and citizenwells.net are not reliable sources. The NYT only gives a cursory mention to Rodriguez in the context of Ruddy's book: "The only skeptical insider Ruddy discusses at length is Miguel Rodriguez, an assistant United States attorney hired by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, after he took over from Fiske in the fall of 1994. Ruddy calls Rodriguez a hero who wanted to get to the bottom of things, but says that a stream of leaks from within the investigation, and the refusal to appoint a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts, caused Rodriguez to quit." If this is the only reliable secondary source discussing Rodriguez's views, then we shouldn't be building a separate section for those views per WP:UNDUE. Italicizing a quote from a primary source published in an unreliable source is another example of WP:CHERRYPICKING and also fails per WP:UNDUE. - Location ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Well, let's see who does "believe this shit". Here is a partial list of journalists who, unlike you apparently, actually spent time researching the case, and came to the realization that Vince Foster certainly did NOT commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park, and likely did not commit suicide at all: Richard Brookhiser, Christopher Hitchens, William Safire, Philip Weiss, Roger Morris, John O'Sullivan, Thomas Sowell, Sam Smith, and Robert Novak. That's just the journalistic side of things. There is also William Sessions, who headed the FBI under three presidents. Vincent Scalice, a former NYPD homicide detective who worked with the FBI on the MLK assassination, and with both the FBI and the US House of Representatives on the JFK assassination. Scalice did his own report on Foster, and reached conclusions opposite to Starr's. Newt Gingrich, who while Speaker of the House said one would have to be "brain dead" to believe that Foster killed himself in Fort Marcy Park. I will ask you to find any such group supporting the Sandy Hook conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, hell, ANY conspiracy. See, the term "conspiracy" is entirely inappropriate when you have the facts on your side. Despite the heavyhandedness the Clintons used to threaten the reputations of anyone who questioned the official Foster story (are you familiar with their 331 page "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce"? They wrote it, I didn't) a handful of courageous folks, some of whom are mentioned above, risked ridicule from the likes of yourself and expressed their opinions publicly. On top of all that we have Miquel (or Miguel; spellings differ) Rodriguez, who was drummed out of the investigation for not toeing to the preordained conclusion. We also have the three judge panel who mandated the attachment of the 20 page Knowles/Clarke appendix to Starr's report, an appendix which renders everything written in the main report into a joke. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard filed story after story about this in the Sunday London Telegraph, for whom he was Washington BUREAU CHIEF. Evans-Pritchard had an ongoing 35+ year career writing first for the Economist and currently for the Telegraph, two of the most respected publications in the Western world. Those who try to dismiss the evidence as a "conspiracy theory" have no idea what to do with Evans-Pritchard, who wrote a book about three scandals that happened under Bill Clinton's watch, one of which was the Foster case. As to Starr, the left has never comprehended why his approval rating was lower than was Saddam Hussein's (really, no joke) in the late 1990s. Liberals despised him for going after Bill Clinton on the sex-related stuff, conservatives knew that his Washington-based team utterly ignored everything else. Those folks were part of the permanent bureaucracy of Washington, the one that barely changes when administrations do. If Starr was as implacable a Clinton foe as Bill Clinton and his supporters portrayed, why did his people fight tooth-and-nail to bury Patrick Knowlton? Hugh Sprunt has two degrees from MIT, and another two from Stanford. (Pity his poor wife, who only has one puny MIT degree.) Sprunt, when not making gobs of money as a successful tax attorney or whatever, realized that the official Foster story was obvious nonsense, and wrote a 200 page report responding to the official version. Try reading it. Or Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Or DCDave, who has covered this extensively and rather brilliantly online (although I am not on board with everything he espouses on non-Foster related items). It is easy to listen to the mainstream media, who ran away from this under threat of Clinton defamation, long before they had a chance to ascertain the truth for themselves. But the two sides are there for you to see for yourself. I can assure you that Sandy Hook was real, the US government (Israel, too) had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, and the moon landing did not happen on a sound stage. I even believe that only one person went to Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963, with the intent on shooting JFK, and that person's name was Lee Harvey Oswald. I also believe that the official Foster story is untrue, because all the evidence shows it to be untrue. Please find out for yourself. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with more expertise than I will know what to do with the fact that the Link to Note #14 (Lori Leibovich, "Why Vincent Foster can't rest in peace", Salon.com, May 28, 1998.) is no longer maintained on the Salon.com web site. Thanks! Jgmccue ( talk) 15:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I am opening this page because the person named in the subject line asked me to, although I do not understand why this is necessary. The entire "Suicide of Vince Foster" article is nothing short of a journalistic atrocity. I made the slightest inprovement at the edges, removing obviously unreliable or outright false information, yet my edit was immediately undone, for reasons that escape me. I explained my justifications for my rather solid edits exactly where I am supposed to, in the box provided for explaining the justification for edits. I did run out of space to provide more sources, but I think 5 should be plenty. In that the information I removed had supplied NO sources, are we not getting this backwards? Vcuttolo ( talk) 23:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The current lede reads
Is there any doubt it was suicide? As far as I know, that's completely unambiguous, but this phrasing heavily implies that there's some uncertainty.
I propose eliminating the weasel-wording in favor of a straightforward statement, as well as perhaps adding some context as to why there's a Wikipedia article about it in the first place. -- Calton | Talk 05:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)