Talk:Chad Castagana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

1 Category: "American Terrorists"
2 This article is way too long
3 Notability of Blogs Contributions
4 Photo available here

[edit] Category: "American Terrorists"

According to the news report cited, He faces charges of conveying false information and sending threats and hoaxes via the U.S. mail, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office

Can you expand on how this is classified as being charged with "terrorism"?--RWR8189 04:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the first page of the affadavit here. .JPG I will look to see if any other 'hoaxers' have been called 'terrorists' by the feds. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

update : I removed him from the category 'american terrorists'. Until someone from US gov describes his alleged acts as terrorism, it's premature. Thanks for pointing this out RW - F.A.A.F.A. 05:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is way too long

All that really needs to be included is that he is alleged to have sent these letters and that he is a prolific poster on various blogs.

We don't need this whole section devoted to his writings, nor do we need the chain of events leading to him being associated with FR, its not notable. JimRob says he posted on FR, that's all that really matters at this point, there is no controversy surrounding his membership that requires this huge section.

I'm going to try and fix it.--RWR8189 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RW,

You guys delelted a TON of sourced, cited, documented content.

'too long' as RW argued is nothing more than an opinion, (and not a very valid one as there are articles 5X-10X as long as this) and not a valid reason to delete content that meets WP, that CptK spent probably hours researching and writing. It was ALL sourced too. I hope you will add much of this back in RW. If you don't, I will.

All the claims were cited in the earlier version. You took out the citing with your edits. 90% of it can be sourced to the one Daily News article. If you are demanding individual cites, please add links to this article, as it documents almost all of them.

Free Republic is a RS for something about FR, if it is a claim not being disputed. It's not. It can stay. -21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The information I deleted was superfluous. There is simply no reason put everything he ever posted on FR as well as his profile in this article. This article is not about FR and what he posted there. Nor is the article about the chain of events that led blogs to associate him with FR. The article is about Costanga, and with the limited information we have from him from reliable sources shouldn't be much more than a stub.

As for the cites, I did not put those up.--RWR8189 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What he wrote and did is inclusionable and even REQUIRED by the article. He is notable ONLY BECAUSE of these actions (threats). I will include everything I can find that he wrote as documented in the afadavit and other RS (much of which you deleted in violation of WP) and the actions he was charged with as documented in the afadavit and other RS, including calling Nancy Pelosi a 'cuntface'. That is what an encyclopedic (sp) article requires.- F.A.A.F.A. 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

note to cp : Thanks for adding the cites back in. Sorry I accused you of removing good inclusionable content when it was RW. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not much more is needed in the article than what is currently in the FR article, I would agree to having this in the article and links pointing the reader there: Casatagana alluded to his alleged crimes on Free Republic, in one case writing about Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters Castagana is alleged to have sent.

However, we don't need to clutter up the article with various musings he wrote, or his former user page at FR. Since his identity is established there is also no further reason to include long diatribes about the blogs that made the initial connection between Costanga and his FR identity.

Also I don't know which rule "WP" is.--RWR8189 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Read this again: What he wrote and did is inclusionable and even REQUIRED by the article. He is notable ONLY BECAUSE of these actions (threats). I will include everything I can find that he wrote as documented in the afadavit and other RS (much of which you deleted in violation of WP) and the actions he was charged with as documented in the afadavit and other RS, including calling Nancy Pelosi a 'cuntface'. That is what an encyclopedic (sp) article requires. Now go read the articles on the unabomber, son of sam, or any other criminal or alleged criminal on Wiki Unabomber - F.A.A.F.A. 04:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See this article on Richard Jewell who was a suspect in the 'olympic bombing' as well - Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If what I deleted violated "WP" (I still don't know what that means) then by all means reinsert or post it here so I can see what you're talking about. I still have no idea why the blogs connecting Castanga and FR, a now proven fact, is in any way relevent, or the things he wrote on a SciFi forum 4 years ago. I don't see what his old FR profile has to do with anything either. A summary of what may have been written about the letters at FR and a link seems more than sufficient to me. But remember, we are here to report the facts as published by reliable sources, not to try or investigate the case.--RWR8189 04:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Read this section on FR and the Killian Documents, then the other Killian Document articles. They all detail EXTESIVELY the investigative process used by the regulars on FR to 'break' the case. Political Influence - Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 06:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the two to be analogous in any way. His association with FR really has no bearing on the course of the case or the nature of the crime, and really isn't any more than an interesting piece of trivia.--RWR8189 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Blogs Contributions

I really don't think that the process of "finding out" he was a member of Free Republic is notable at all. It has nothing to do with his alleged crime, and it relies on the good faith claim of unreliable sources. None of the other information about the research the blogs did is verifiable and may run into WP:BLP issues.--RWR8189 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)