Talk:Danny Casolaro

message: Hag2, Dixie Brown and several others have been blocked as sockpuppets of Anne Teedham, this is one of several severely damaged pages. This editor has made allegations of involvement in homicides against one of the subjects of editing, a known witness who's documents have been featured in recently breaking news stories regarding arrest of an organized crime suspect in a triple homicide. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/station/as-seen-on/Suspect_Arrested_in_Triple_Murder__Had_Been_Given_Immunity_Los_Angeles.html  Note the Cabazon Arms document at the end of this news story is from the files of Michael Riconosciuto, last document on this page. The Riconosciuto page has also been severely vandalized by these and other sockpuppets. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/jpn/ Winksatfriend (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Remaining questions and allegations" section 

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

text: This is not an encyclopedia.  It is a tool used by power to control the flow of information.  This is far from the first dishonest, poorly cited, misleading, corporatist wikipedia article. 70.16.96.109 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: David Corn's quote summarizes everything well.  His quote does not provide "a logically imbalanced emphasis" to either the possibility of murder, or the likelihood 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)
thread_title:  Point of View 

message: ----
In David Corn's quote, he seems to use to use two different (high versus low) standards, to asses the murder and suicide possibilities. 
David Corn's standard to judge the Murder idea: 
He judges the "murder" idea against a standard of whether it is "conclusive", a high standard (conclusive is like saying certain).  
David Corn's standard to judge the Suicide idea: 
He judges the suicide idea by a standard of whether it is plausible (at all).  Plausible is a lower standard, something like "possible"; it doesn't require certainty or finality (as in the murder standard).   
The David 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."
It would be ok for him (or anyone) to take whatever position the evidence leads to, but then we need the same standard.  We need to know for BOTH (suicide and murder) whether they are conclusive, not apples for one and oranges for the other.  
I am not saying David Corn is intentionally unfair, and his article might indeed be important; I am only saying that the quote is not suitable for an encyclopedia which aims to be balanced. 
[Aside: I am surprised someone privately (mytalk) threatened me to ban or bar me from making suggestions, instead of just asking for clarification.]  
POINT TWO
Another commenter explained that David Corn "really means": "Corn merely says nothing is conclusive."
Really?  .. How can we know from the quote?".  If it is true that his (article's) view is that nothing is conclusive, then the evidence supporting this from his article should be included, not excluded.
--Ihaveabutt (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: David Corn's quote summarizes everything well.  His quote does not provide "a logically imbalanced emphasis" to either the possibility of murder, or the likelihood 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)
thread_title: David Corn: Apples and Oranges | Made more clear 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Peer review

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peter Videnieks 

message: The original Corn quote seems imbalanced, and that was the only point I had been trying to make.   The dissent below (block quoted) seems very strange to me (talking about syntax and grammar) 
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." 
 
This David Corn quote above expends more of his effort knocking down murder; and less knocking down suicide.  Compare the parts (above) with and without emphasis.
CORRECTED (own text) 'Ihave' due to duplication of apology 
--Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to debate elements of logic, go to a philosophy forum.  Wikipedia articles are written hopefully to inform, to present factual information.  In your arguments against David Corn's grammatical structure and syntax, perhaps you are correct.  Whether or not, your arguments about Corn's sentence structure are relevant to the Danny Casolaro article is not debatable as far as I am concerned.  They appear to be disruptive and self-serving.  Some editors in Wikipedia have coined an expression for what you appear to be doing; it is called "coatrack".  Before I commented upon your comment here, I checked your other contributions in Wikipedia and found further commentary of yours at David Corn's talkpage.  Please confine your arguments regarding his sentence structure, syntax, logic, or whatever else you wish to bemoan over there, or on your own talkpage.  If you continue to disrupt the Danny Casolaro article for the purpose of engaging debate in arguments for the purpose of illustrating a point of your own, then I will seek to have you blocked from the Danny Casolaro article. Wikipedia Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. (see here).  Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  (and here).  Lastly, several editors have provided you with excellent welcome messages on your talkpage  I suggest that you take the time to follow their links, to understand what guiding principles are behind Wikipedia editing. —Dixie Brown (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again a Case for Balance (with a correction) 

message: I inserted two requests for full quotations.  One for the David Corn quote discussed above.  The other for a reference to Lyndon LaRouche.  Both references are in David Corn's article in The Nation.  It is not web accessible, unless purchased.  —Dixie Brown (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LaRouche--see page 164 of Micheal T. Hurley's I Solemnly Swear  Hurley says: "According to Rosenbaum's article, the 'key lieutenant of conspiracy-cult leader Lyndon LaRouche' brought Riconosciuto to the Hamiltons."  So it looks like we need to go directly to Rosenbaum, not Corn. Anne Teedham (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Annie.  That's interesting.  I also found a reference to Jack Anderson.  According to a interview between Bobbie Riconosciuto and Dave Emory (if I recall correctly), Jack Anderson called Michael and said, "You need to contact this reporter, Danny Casolaro ...".  But I'm not buying that scenario really because I think both Riconosciutos are well-versed in the art of fabrication.  I'm beginning to think that there is not a shred of truth in anything related to Michael Riconosciuto.  Your link to Hurley's book is fantastic.  It sheds a great deal of light on background relevant to Inslaw too: i.e. Lester Coleman, another huckster, conman, in a growing list of fabricators. —Dixie Brown (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested quotations 

message: Wikipedia indicates that conspiracy theory means several very different things: 
  The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be (*) a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, (*)  a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim without examination, and (*) a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some (*) for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is (*) that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.
These mixed meanings are hardly the same, leaving the reader wondering what the categorization means in the case of Danny's research. Could the source of this categorization please clarify: What is the statement?   
Is it that:  
(a) there was a problem with Danny's research - was it a mere jumble of unsourced speculations? 
or it is controversial because  
(b) Danny did not finish evidence collection and people in power are criticized? 
If readers don't know what the editor means, then readers need to know what the editor may know on what grounds, for such a label to be productive.  
--Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory and grounded conspiracy theory - different things 

message: A few days ago, I added some info from a 1993 Spy magazine article by John Connolly. User SlimVirgin reverted the page, writing "changes not an improvement, sources not the best." I added the information with the goal of improving the article, so I obviously disagree with the first part of her objection. SlimVirgin's claim that "Sources not the best" requires explanation, I think. I used only one source, Connolly's Spy magazine article. Spy was mostly satire, but occasionally featured serious investigative journalism, so I think it qualifies as a reputable source. 
Connolly uncovered some information unknown to other sources for the article. Such information I think is worth having on this page includes:
A) That Martinsburg police withheld or neglected to share crime scene evidence with pathologist Henry C. Lee who reviewed the case. When Connolly shared this information with Lee, the latter retracted his conclusion that Casolaro committed suicide; 
B) That Martinsburg police had a track record of not rigorously investigating suicides;
C) That Casolaro's embalming was a violation of state law since next-of-kin weren't notified, and expert medical opinion that the embalming rendered the subsequent autopsies "fatally flawed"; 
D) That the paramedic on the scene had never seen such deep wrist-wounds on a suicide, and that a university-level medical doctor thought the wounds and lack of hesitation marks were "significant" and "unusual"; 
E) That Casolaro uncovered some important information that was later independently verified;
F) That an FBI agent friend of Casolaro's said that Casolaro claimed that a source warned or threatened that Casolaro would die if he continued his investigation. 
For most of these claims, Connolly cites names of known (and sometimes highly respected) individuals whose opinions went into the public record. 
Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand the basis of SlimVirgin's claim that the source was "not the best." Room429 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The best approach for dealing with issues related to another editor's assumption of an article's ownership and distortion of factual information is to request a concensus of opinion of the Wikipedia general population.  In judging whether or not to pursue a Request for Comment, a working knowledge of an article's page history will prove to be beneficial.  In reference to your recent comments, I believe that you will find these two versions of the same details "insightful".  From that point (in the page history) moving forward, pay particular attention to how SlimVirgin has rewritten the entire article to eliminate relevant details contained in the Footnotes and References of previous versions.  —Merry Yellow (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John Connolly as a source

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Danny Casolaro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/91/6/octopus.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A link to this 2016 article from CBS Las Vegas was recently added to the lead. As the CBS article itself notes, the list is conspiratorial hooey. This has no place for this on Casolaro's page, unless a section is on 'conspiratorial hooey' is added. In fact, the whole page is riddled with problematic material and edits from a gaggle of sockpuppets over a decade ago and has never been completely fixed. I will try and trim back the flowers in this walled garden in the semi-near future. Rgr09 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead link