Talk:Gary Webb

I don't think Wikipedia should EVER say, of a person who died by TWO bullets, that it was suicide, unless it was videotaped. I would never say, as the condemnation above says, that "suicide is unlikely", but MAYBE it's unlikely. I don't know how likely or unlikely it might be. What I do know is that when Wikipedia allows it to be stated AS FACT that it is 100% certain to have been suicide, as if there were no debate on the matter, then Wikipedia is guilty of a moral wrongdoing and censorship. Maybe it was suicide. Maybe suicide is likely. Maybe it's unlikely. Saying that it was 100% sure to be a murder would be morally wrong too, a pretense, a lack of objectivity. But so is saying that it's a suicide. Wikipedia can be encyclopedic here ONLY by saying things like "officials ruled it a suicide" or "the case that it was a suicide is ..." and then detailing that case, and then saying immediately afterwards "Arguments against the suicide explanation include ..." and then detailing those too. Be objective. Be fair. Tell both sides. Don't tell people what facts to believe when those are not facts but are inferences incorrectly extracted from a set of facts that does NOT objectively justify a conclusion either way.~2026-14597-90 (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)