Talk:Danny Casolaro/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: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 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 , 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)

Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg
''[The following information has been moved here from Hag2's talkpage. It has been collapsed for improved usability.]''

Hotel or motel?
On 17 August 2008, I nominated Danny Casolaro for the Good Article category. This morning I discovered that the reference to Casolaro lodging at the Sheraton Inn  in Martinsburg, WVA is incorrect, probably. This is based on two facts: currently there is no listing for a Sheraton Inn in Martinsburg, and secondly Heatherfields Cocktail Lounge is located in a Holiday Inn. (note also that the Heatherfields in the Holiday Inn is spelled without the apostrophe). These two facts are in dispute of the published references throughout the internet to Casolaro lodging in Room 517 at the Sheraton Inn in 1991. They need to be addressed. Thus, I am now in the process of withdrawing the above nomination until I can correct this inaccuracy. (Unfortunately, this inaccuracy was published throughout the internet from 1991 to present day. I believe that the root of the problem began with the Ridgeway and Vaughan article in the Village Voice.  I will email the editors of VV for a response.) Hag2 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I emailed all of the following...but received no response: Village Voice; the curator of Casolaro's files at the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri; the Martinsburg, W.Va police department's public-affairs officer; and Heatherfields Restaurant.  The issue of Sheraton Inn is a minor issue, although it should be reported accurately.  Some mainstream 1991 newspapers chose to use the simple word hotel thus making it non-specific.  Keeping this in mind, it should be noted that Holiday Inn lists only 127 rooms (or thereabouts), and that the Holiday Inn is located on U.S. Interstate 81 (it was reported that Casolaro stayed in something "on I-81"), and that the nearest Sheratons (plural) seem to be located in nearby communities.  All of this means that it would be nice to find someone from Martinsburg who could explain all this confusion. Hag2 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update 2: Not being satisfied with this particular mystery, on December 4, 2008, I pursued the matter further and received a very quick and satisfying answer. With the help from the Director of Information Services for the Martinsburg-Berkeley County Public Libraries, he and I were able to determine:
 * The last year that the Sheraton is listed in the Martinsburg City directory is 1994. Starting in 1995, the Holiday Inn is listed.  The Heatherfields restaurant and lounge remained in the same location in that building.
 * Maybe we should not assume that because there was a room 517 that there were more than 500 rooms. It is possible that there were not one hundred rooms on each floor.  Perhaps there were only about 26 rooms on each floor.  That would make about 130 rooms, less a few hotel utility rooms. Both the interior and the exterior of the building have been drastically remodeled within the last few years.
 * Because Sheraton was located on an interstate, and because Sheraton's full title was Sheraton Hotels and Inns, Inc., it is possible that Ridgeway and Vaughan overlooked the hotel distinction and emphasised the vernacular of inn.
 * A photograph (see middle image titled 'Hotel Exterior') of the existing building clearly shows a five-storied building.
 * Keeping all the above in mind, it is clear that Gary Lee's August 13, 1991, Washington Post article ("Area Writer Investigating Inslaw Case Found Dead") is a much better reference for the kind of building structure than Ridgeway and Vaughan in their October 13, Village Voice article ("The Last Days of Danny Casolaro"). Moreover, Elliot Richardson writing in The Bua Report, Section III, E (1) "Evidence that Casolaro...", paragraph 2, states: "...Casolaro was found dead in the bathtub of his room in the Sheraton Hotel in Martinsburg, West Virginia...."
 * Thus, I will alter the language of the main article to reflect the word hotel when refering to the structure.
 * In addition, as soon as I can secure a freely-acceptable-image for the building, I will insert it into the article in the area of the passages describing the police investigation into whether or not someone rappelled from the roof. Hag2 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Image was added on 27 January 2009--Dixie Hag2 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Old commentary 2005-2008

 * Hi 205.118.16.153, thanks for adding all that material. I'm sorry if my edit summaries sounded harsh; I didn't mean them to. My concern is only that everything should be sourced, especially with a topic like this where there are so many rumors, and that we should be careful not to add our own opinion e.g. "Some of Riconoscuito's claims seemed accurate." Also, please try to explain who all the players are, because it gets very confusing.


 * I added of the two writers who quote the waitress that they were "conspiracy-theory writers." You may feel that's too POV, so by all means find another expression. I used that one because one of them actually published (and may still do) a magazine or website devoted to conspiracy theories, so it seemed apt to call him that. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)