User talk:Rob216

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Viriditas | Talk 20:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Israeli art students
In your opinion, what is wrong with the current version? And, have you actually read the alleged memo, itself? --Viriditas | Talk 20:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, it isn't a DEA "report", it's an alleged memo that hasn't been substantiated by anyone. Second of all, in what way is the current version a "whitewash" in your opinion? If we just concentrate on stating facts, there should be no problem.  If you want to help me compile a timeline of events, that would be great.  I don't know anything about CAMERA, so I can't comment on the veracity of that source, but I will look into it. BTW, to indent your reply to comments on the talk page use the requisite number of colons, or one more than the one preceeding it. --Viriditas  | Talk 04:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * John Sugg is a good writer and investigative reporter (and I concur with many of his opinions) but he is also a known muckraker. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, however his "agenda" might happen to interfere with the topic in question, and as a result he tends to be sloppy.  His reliance on anonymous sources doesn't help prove his case, but in fact weakens it. There are also a number of inaccuracies in Sugg's article, such as the claim that Cameron broke the original story (New York Times, Washington Post, and Jerusalem Post had previously covered similar stories).  The botom line is, when you put all the information together -- and I've attempted to do just that -- all you are left with are "anonymous" sources saying one thing, and estabilshed, credible authorities saying it's bogus. But forget about the secondary sources for a minute; let's look at the primary document together.  I'm reading a copy of news_dea.pdf that I downloaded from Sugg's site.  It's only five pages long and doesn't seem to substantiate any of the conspiracy theories floating around.  Can you post a direct link to the actual memo? --Viriditas  | Talk 09:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)