Talk:Jennifer Casolo

Controversy
I appreciate the interest you have shown in this article. Please remember to keep your comments within the parameters outlined by Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policy. Also, please remember that plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. You have inserted entire paragraphs of text taken directly from the HRW article. This is not allowable and may lead to suspension of your editing priviliges. Also, remember that the sources you cite must be reliable and verifiable. They cannot simply be your personal opinion. The following articles should be of assistance to you:









Mister Jinxy 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My edits
Just a heads-up. I've made three edits, the first two of which are (I think) entirely uncontroversial and simply efforts to improve the readability of the article. My third edit was to add a fact tag to an assertion that I'm not sure belongs in the article. - Orphic 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. As I stated, go look at the edit history of this page and you will see multiple people, including Casolo herself, trying to whitewash this issue and remove any type of incriminating material. I have no problem including both sides of the story in accordance with NPOV, but they appear to want to remove any reference to what happened and dispute that the event even happened. Happy editing. Mister Jinxy 13:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I added a NPOV tag. Jennifer Casolo, the subject of the article, has claimed that the article is inaccurate and one-sided (in edits such as this one). The article is very poorly cited, so I feel her objections must be given some credence. I should note, Jennifer is a family friend from when I was a child, and I've offered to help her sort this out. But as of yet, I'm not very familiar with the events in question, so I'm not ready to make any specific edits yet. -Pete (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the search?
It would be interesting to know why the government searched her residence and how long she had lived there. The AIM group seemed to be claiming that they refuted her story, but she was quoted as saying that either the arms were planted or they were there before she moved there. Even if AIM's facts make her first theory less likely, they don't have anything whatsoever to do with the second. The AIM story, which I looked at, also made a big deal about a bunch of keys found at her residence. Showing what? She was a cat-burglar? She was getting ready to use the keys as shrapnel? She had a key fetish? Geneven (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Objective Language and Context
(Non-logged in user) Although I am not an experienced editor I am a constant user and fan of Wikipedia. I noted that the first paragraph read like US govt propaganda, and used an inordinate amount of detail to say the basic fact that the US govt. official response was that she was guilty, something most human rights observers contradicted.

For anyone who doesn't understand the background of the Salvadoran conflict, absolutely anything the US govt said at the time is now highly suspect in hindsight. I didn't mean to remove their view, but giving it the space and wording that it was awarded previously is ingenuous.

I apologize for not having a perfect understanding of "edit protocol." And no, I am not the woman in question, although obviously I am sympathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.120.32 (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)