Talk:Danny Casolaro

Copyright problem Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg

see Archive 1

"Remaining questions and allegations" section

"Remaining questions and allegations" is unencyclopedic and silly. The article has no business asserting questions from conspiracy authors. The article is to give facts, that is all. We66er (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you have miscontrued the subsection Remaining questions.... These are facts; they are not the suppositions of "conspiracy authors". Granted, the story of Danny Casolaro's investigation into whatever he saw within his connections of A-to-Z eventually encompassed thousands of conspiracy websites, writings, and on-the-fringe lunatics... but I am not willing to give into your opinion that this subsection "has no business asserting questions from conspiracy authors". Elliot Richardson, Jack Brooks, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Henry C. Lee, Dr. Anthony Casolaro, and Thomas Gates are hardly to be considered "conspiracy authors". With regard to James Ridgeway, Doug Vaughan, C.D. Seltzer, and David Corn—the principal authors in the main body of the article—they backup their assertions with reliable and credible factual reporting. Hag2 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of View

Article claims Casalaro committed suicide! This is lies, he was murdered! Conwiki 03:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If you have good, sourced evidence for his murder, then review the NPOV policy and add it according to the guidelines. --Viriditas | Talk 06:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Is not it possible to write the article in a way that does not rule out violent death? I don't want to make every point, but that the embalming was incorrect is a very clear observation. When specialists start implying that (the towels affair) the police makes the case, when non religious people mention god in suicide notes, its all very classical. And after all even some cia agents don't want to lie over his death. As far as him being depressed on that evening goes ,(it seems so heavily weighted in the article) barmen are not always the better witnesses; since he was manipulated by phone , he may have had disturbing phonecalls or a dip in the research(that was actually the case), he may have received new threats, or even have suspected he was in problems over his head. All decent reasons to seem somewhat depressed. So especially since his close friends had been informed not to take everything for granted and even informed them of not having suicidal intentions,the lousy investigation, the mingling with proof, professional disappearance of his papers, and the deep slashes, i think he was killed professionally, and for sad reasons since much of what he was finding has been uncovered after. The exact circle of killers may be deduced by comparative analysis of murders and suspect suicides in the years it happened. For me the article indeed is strongly in denial.77.248.56.242

I believe that POV is handled fairly well throughout the article. By the end, it is quite apparent that there are two separate issues: suicide or murder. Neither carries more weight than the other. The purpose of the article is not to decide which of the two is the better but rather to present facts surrounding the biography of Danny Casolaro. The final two paragraphs of What was the Octopus summarize everything well:

"Casolaro alleged that he was nearly ready to have revealed a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy spanning Iran-Contra, the October Surprise Conspiracy, the closure of Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and the bombing of Pan Am 103, — involving the Central intelligence Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the U.S. Justice Dept, the Wackenhut Corporation, Mossad, and MI5 and MI6 British Secret Services. Writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, Phil Linsalata notes:

"Any one of those stories of course is a challenge for America's best journalists. Casolaro wanted to tackle them all."[43]

Ridgeway and Vaughn wondered, "—why Danny? Dozens of reporters have explored the same terrain.... And Casolaro had never written an article on the Octopus for any publication." [44]

Hag2 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

David Corn Strawman

The David Corn quote provides a logically imbalanced emphasis, because the notion of foul play is no less important than the notion of suicide; the equality of that balance was largely achieved in the prior text. The additional Corn sentences are not in balance.

Is the notion of suicide conclusive? I think not.

Is the notion of foul play conclusive? I think not.

If neither side is conclusive, and David Corn knocks down just one extreme, then it is an imbalanced straw man assertion.

The disproportionate emphasis to one side is illustrated in the bolded text:

However, no conclusive evidence of murder has been found. David Corn of The Nation wrote, "Anomalies do not add up to a conclusive case for murder...; [the] suicide explanation is unsatisfying but not wholly implausible; the possibility of murder is intriguing but the evidence to date is not overwhelming."

Many things are not conclusive in life.

Is it conclusive that we know the intricacies of what Casolaro discovered? I think not.

Lets make sure not to disproportionately go attack dog on one side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

David Corn's quote summarizes everything well. His quote does not provide "a logically imbalanced emphasis" to either the possibility of murder, or the liklihood of suicide. Disassembling his remarks into various phrases without interpreting his entire quote as a single element, is self-serving. Corn merely says nothing is conclusive: or, in other words, Casolaro's death could be either murder or suicide, but to date there is no overwhelming evidence. His point of view is exactly what an average reader comes to realize by the time that reader finishes the complete article. —Dixie Brown (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT Your rebuttal seems strange and I'm pretty sure you do not speak for 'average reader'. "Dissembling" is a high and grand accusation, as is 'self serving' and that is common of some commentors on wikipedia, but not all. What YOU report him to be saying WOULD BE more balanced, but unfortunately, your words are not his.

See next entry.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

peer review

A peer review was performed by User:DrKiernan on 3 October 2008 using a "semi-automatic javascript program, which highlights minor issues of style." That review has now been archived. Hag2 (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I read through that peer review and thought that this article needed another opinion. But someone changed my opinion which I had listed as A. Can't figure this place out yet. No big deal. I've looked through your other stuff and like how you cross reference everything. Keep up the good work. I'll try to figure out what that other guy meant. ThsQ (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hotel or motel?

see Archive 1

Notes and References section

• I added a category labeled "Footnotes" in order to create a more pleasing interaction between the article and the reader (i.e. clicking a number produces the referenced object in the lower portion of the page). For further details see:Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners. After further corrections have been made, "Footnotes" should be relabled to read: "Notes and References". Hag2 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, Hag2. I altered your subsection titles in References to avoid any misuderstanding about the meaning of notes and footnotes and references. I hope that you will consider these alterations as minor (as I do). ThsQ (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If I need to go into too much discussion on this, I will have to come back to it later on today due to family commitments for Thanksgiving, but I'll try to give a brief run down of my viewpoint. (I've discussed the article quite a few times with Hag2, although I've largely left the editing of the article to him (her?). Essentially, I changed the headings back because they didn't exactly represent what the sections were. The section covering the inline citations weren't a bibliography and that was part of my issue with it. If you feel they need to be better identified, I'd suggest using the Inslaw as the example, in that the main heading of References be removed altogether and use either Notes or Footnotes for the first section and the inline citations section be called References. Also the project is mostly trying to move away from using the <small></small> coding, so lesser subheading sections should be noted by adding the next lower tier markup by adding another equal sign (=), and the first word of the title of a section should always be capitalized. This article differs from Pericles in the sheer number of notes, citations, references to primary and secondary sources and external links. I think a good article reviewer would criticize the organization of the sections as it was with "explanatory notes". That mostly covers my reasoning and I apologize for not explaining it here before. I hope that explains my thoughts on the section titles. If you want to discuss anything further, I'll be available after around 4:30 pm EST. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Thank you, Wildhartlivie for your point of view. I believe that you have answered my concerns well. I will leave everything as is until I hear from Hag2. Until then, I will examine your suggests about the Inslaw example, and draw Hag2's attention to this discussion. ThsQ (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, ThsQ (and Wildhart too). I have no objections to any alterations in the structure of Danny Casolaro (or any other articles to which I have been an editor). I would like to point out that I have been only a researcher of material on this entire story (Inslaw), and that I am unhappy at the moment with a great deal of what has been written. For example, Danny Casolaro fails to mention anything about Peter Videnieks, or the Office of Senator Byrd. Elliot Richardson's "Bua Report Rebuttal" goes into details which need to be addressed, be verified, and be presented. To date, the surface material of Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Earl Brian, and Michael Riconosciuto is fraught with too many loose ends for anyone to be concerned too much over structure. I have noticed that you have been persuing some of these details throughout Wikipedia, and I appreciate your endeavors. I have been in the background due to ugly innuendoes [1] [2], and will continue my research until a more accurate story evolves. It is terribly difficult to get to the truth when there is so much dubious misinformation. When an investigation is compounded by hysterial people who are blinded by only their own interpretations, the work becomes increasing more difficult. I think that we need to reclassify Danny Casolaro downward, to be more in line with a C-classification until some of these mysterious surroundings are more clearly presented (that is, the current version is under-developed.)

This brings me to another point. Much earlier, I wrote in the request for a preview that "My major concern is whether or not this article is an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, it may be little more than mainstream background detailing the final days of Danny Casolaro's life."

I am not entirely certain if Wikipedia is the proper place for editors to try to unravel a mystery. Hag2 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dixie, I am embarrassed to say that I have mistaken your gender. Please accept my apologies. I have no real dispute with anything which you have researched so far and I applaud you on your research. I was tickled to see how you uncovered Anson Ng Yong's true identity and I think that the mistake in repeatedly printing his name incorrectly for the past decade goes to the heart of bad journalism and the need for due diligence. If you want to downgrade this article on Casolaro, I have no objection. Did you see the Reguly article I found on Earl Brian? I've been adding a few things over there to his biography. Please call me Theo. ThsQ (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Videnieks

I created a stub on Peter Videnieks to fill the void which existed. It is now ready for as much additional information as we can find. I look forward to everyone's input.ThsQ (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again a Case for Balance, this time without the personalized attacks

Corn Quote

However, no conclusive evidence of murder has been found. David Corn of The Nation wrote, "Anomalies do not add up to a conclusive case for murder...; [the] suicide explanation is unsatisfying but not wholly implausible; the possibility of murder is intriguing but the evidence to date is not overwhelming."[4]

This David Corn quote above expends far more than half of its holistic effort knocking down one side among two possibilities.

The BOLD part favors NOT MURDER

And the ITALICS part questions SUICIDE

When people call for a new investigation, it is because they do not believe a sound investigation has occurred. If Corn can establish that a proper investigation DID occur, then that would be important.

The initial sentence that precedes the Corn quote is not Corn himself, is it?

When someone dies, nothing about it is "intriguing", whether suicide or murder. The Corn quote treats what seem to be general unanswered questions (on all sides) as an intellectual curiosity ("intriguing"). More important, the sentences are imbalanced, more knocking down one extreme. He does NOT say BOTH are not established.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dixie Brown Says "Dissembling" and "Self Serving" - for the record

Dixie Brown is turning on the personal attack lingo that does not really foster productive collaboration:

- "Dissembling"

- "Self Serving"

QUOTE: His quote does not provide "a logically imbalanced emphasis" to either the possibility of murder, or the liklihood of suicide. Disassembling his remarks into various phrases without interpreting his entire quote as a single element, is self-serving. Corn merely says nothing is conclusive: or, in other words, Casolaro's death could be either murder or suicide, but to date there is no overwhelming evidence. His point of view is exactly what an average reader comes to realize by the time that reader finishes the complete article. —Dixie Brown (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No big deal, Lets all stay more on the issues.

Look again careful at the emphasis of his quote, and the sentence preceding it

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)