Talk:Michael Riconosciuto

This page, and several Inslaw related pages, has been vandalized by recently banned sockpuppets of Anne Teedham

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfae (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing and questionable sentences

1. The sentence: "He was interviewed after the Oklahoma city bombing on whether this type of bomb might have been used." is pointless and unencyclopedic without mentioninig the most credible interviewer involved. Or does he claim that law enforcement subjected him to an interview as part of their investigations?
--Jerzy•t 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "Riconosciuto was a main source for investigative journalist Danny Casolaro, who died in 1991 while researching INSLAW."—gives too much undeserved credit to the memory of Danny Casolaro. Casolaro was NOT an "investigative journalist"; he was a "freelance writer". Casolaro had a few credits to his name, but nothing which would have lofted him into the arena of "investigative journalism". The mere facts that Casolaro believed in some sort of massive conspiracy, that he died from a questionable suicide, and that he was investigating facts surrounding INSLAW are all outweighed by the reality that neither Time magazine, nor the publishers Little Brown, nor Time Warner placed much belief in Casolaro's ability to handle that story. Hag2 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

changed "investigative journalist" to "freelance journalist" to conform to the Danny Casolaro page. Hag2 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

3. is an American convicted methamphetamine chemist, or cooker.[1][nb 1] check the reference because conspiracy to produce is not the same as production. This article does not state that he was convicted of manufacturing drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winksatfriend (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Riconosciuto was convicted in 1973 for the manufacture of PCP. He spent two years in prison. Then, again, in 1991, he was charged with manufacturing another illegal drug. He was convicted on seven drug-related charges. These are all indisputable facts. Why you want to nitpick over the relationship of the words "convicted" and "methamphetamine" and "chemist" is your own business. The facts speak for themselves. I see absolutely no problem, mate, with the phrase "is an American convicted metamphetamine chemist, or cooker[1]." I think your remark (as well as your entire criticism) is based more on an emotional bias than a reality check. ThsQ (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Hag2 attempting to implicate this man in murders committed by Phillip Arthur Thompson is not just error, it is libellous and subject to legal action, particularly in consideration of ongoing murder investigations. Trial witness Vali Delahanty was a defense witness for Riconosciuto, to suggest that he is responsible for her disappearance is more than an error. Quoting Another murder connected to the INSLAW case?, second paragraph at this link http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/articles/ "Prior to her disappearance, Delahanty told her sister and others that she had seen something she should not have seen and she feared for her life. Delahanty had related to several people before her disappearance that Michael Riconosciuto was being set up and would be arrested." The fact that Virginia McCullough chose to assist convicted serial killer Phillip Arthur Thompson during his trial by intimidating witnesses and witness families should be considered when addressing this page. To suggest that "Eventually, his shady background would implicate him in several suspicious crimes: the death of Betty Marie Cloer [7], the death of Vali Delahanty[8], and the disappearance of Valerie McDonald.[9]" is a minor error does not suffice. Here are some articles on the murder of Valerie and Thompson's role: http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/thompson/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winksatfriend (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Several persons have been inserting malicious edits around the Inslaw case, including this page, Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Ted Gunderson and Earl Brian. Persons making efforts to discredit the lead witness to the Inslaw case should not be editing any of these pages. Hag2 has also inserted comments into the page of the investigator of record for Michael Riconosciuto, retired FBI Special Agent in Charge, Ted Gunderson. A link has been made to an article by Virginia McCullough, a person who has relentlessly maligned both Riconosciuto and Gunderson's reputations. Riconosciuto has a document archive set up with foia documents and related articles.

Attempting to characterize a person based on an expunged record for a sealed case is not acceptable, and presuming to know why a record is expunged is not sufficient. There is no record of drugs in a lab run by Michael Riconosciuto, only precursors which can and are legally used for mining platinum group metals. Audio evidence was insufficient for the jury, video evidence would have been exposed as fraudulent if the key witness, Vali Delahanty had not been abducted and murdered. EPA found no drug lab contamination despite claims by prosecution that there was so much contamination that the lab equipment had to be destroyed. Clearly the recent wave of Inslaw related editors are not interested in any of these facts. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/articles/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winksatfriend (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

*my below comment has been moved here by me from the .3-position to conform with User:Winksatfriend's 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) removal of commentary, and restructing of the talkpage, as seen here [1]. ThsQ (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please give us a break on the emotional rant. If you have documents that exculpate Riconosciuto, then let us see them. Riconosciuto's record speaks for itself. Your allegations against Hag2 are groundless, juvenile, and cite absolutely no clear indications of anything to which you allude.

You have maligned Hag2 but you have shown no examples. For instance, there is no mention anywhere that Hag2 accused Michael Riconosciuto of murdering anyone. Everything that I have read so far by Hag2 has been supported by verifiable reference data. On the other hand, nothing that you have written anywhere is supported by anything. If someone should be banned from Wikipedia, it is a person who appears from nowhere, fails to create an account, and then begins to harangue others who attempt to get to facts. As long as you can try to remain civil, then you may continue as an active participant in Wikipedia. However if you continue to slam the other editors, then I imagine someone will come along and come down upon you. You seem to overlook some truly, good, hard facts surrounding this fellow Riconosciuto. How is it possible that Riconosciuto was accused, tried, and convicted twice of felonies which have incarcerated him for a good number of his adult years? Is this part of a massive conspiracy? What proof do you have of anything? Let us see your documents, or quit this juvenile nonsense about spooks and murderers behind every door knob. ThsQ (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Any attempt to use Thompson's murder victims to cast doubt on Riconosciuto's character should be considered suspicious. The references have been deleted, but we have them saved and the original intent of the slander is not going to be overlooked. Hag2 has no business posting on this page and cannot get even basic facts straight.Winksatfriend (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Winksatfriend

?
ThsQ (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Along with his father Marshall Riconosciuto, Michael Riconosciuto associated closely with the Tacoma, Washington conspiracy-theory-advocate Fred Crisman.^{[citation needed][who?][vague]}

Hello, Hag2, I think you need to explain this sentence rather than rely upon the crosslink. That is why I inserted the "who" and "vague" inline tags. Since this sentence is the last sentence in the lead, it carries a great deal of weight. Right now (as written) that weight seems to drop suddenly as in the sound of a "dead weight" and a reader may feel that this fellow, Fred Crisman, is much more significant than suggested by that STUB article on him. ThsQ (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Riconosciuito's claims

Claim: "Computer expert"

The article's opening sentence describes him as a "computer expert." Is there any independent verification of this claim? Has anyone actually seen this guy write code?PoohbahLordHighEverythingElse (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Claim: "16-year-old with an argon laser

Based on his Bureau of Prisons profile, Mr. Riconosciuto is 64 years old as of January 23rd, 2012, which means he was born either in 1947 or very early 1948. He would have been 16 in the 1963-64 timeframe. Following the argon laser link indicates that the argon laser was invented in 1964 by William Bridges at Hughes Aircraft. So, the claim is that Mr. Riconosciuto independently invented the argon laser--and that he may even have a primogenitural claim on it. This would significantly change the history of lasers if it could be verified.PoohbahLordHighEverythingElse (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

barometric bomb

see also Mannlicher-Carcanno Bomb of Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror Riconosciuto was one of many (incl the more "reputable" Benton K. Partin) insisting ANFO couldn't do that - and some suspect a device Riconosciuto is supposed to have invented, a species of FAE or MOAB. 142.177.127.253 17:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'course in the end the feds went with an ANNM theory. Partin may have been precipitous thinking it had to be ANFO, or maybe the feds went with something exotic/obscure so fewer questions would be asked. I can't find online reliable data comparing ANFO and ANNM to think on my own whether it'd make the difference ... I can't even find if ANNM is a high explosive; only a high would do that damage. Kwantus 23:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of material from subsection Early background in science

[This topic was moved here from User_talk:Rocksanddirt#Michael_Riconosciuto.]

[Rocksanddirt], You deleted several verifiable sections of material from subsection Early background in science. Would you please elaborate upon your reasoning. The material was easily verified by the citations which were provided:

1. McCullough, Virginia (17 February 2008). "Who is puppet master, Michael Riconosciuto?". Newsmakingnews. Retrieved on 8 September 2008.
2. McCullough, Virginia (18 February 2008). "Is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto pulling the strings in the Betty Cloer murder trial?". News making news. Retrieved on 20 September 2008.
3. Martin, Harry (16 April 1993). "Another murder connected to the Inslaw case?/" p.18. The Napa Sentinel. Retrieved on 29 September 2008.
4. Martz, Larry (11 January 1981). "The Mystery of the Diasappearing Actress Deepens". San Francisco Sunday Examiner. Retrieved on 20 September 2008.

Please provide a reply within the next 24 hours to avoid WP:REVERT and WP:EW. Please reply here [below this message], in order to maintain the continuity of our disagreement. Thank you. Hag2 (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good revert, Rocksanddirt. It appears to be entirely in keeping with WP:BLP. Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph. One hopes User:Hag2 above will not WP:REVERT or WP:EW, but instead will use the "WP:talkpage" of the article to work with others to come to WP:CONSENSUS. Risker (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment,Risker. You wrote: "Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph." I believe differently. Although Newsmaking News is certainly not The New York Times, nor The Washington Post, it does provide a degree of reliability: i.e. it maintains a position and stands legally with a prepared legal staff behind that position . To what do you rely upon for your comment? With regard to the "negative paragraph", the items contained within those two paragraphs reference specific, accurate facts. I will be moving this subsection within 24 hours (via "cut and paste", onto the Talk:Michael Riconosciuto page which the originator of the deletion, Rocksanddirt, may have overlooked in the beginning, and where it would be of greater benefit to all parties concerned in order "to work with others to come to WP:CONSENSUS". Thank you, Hag2 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to link to newsmakingnews.com's editorial policy, any information that demonstrates that it stands behind its reports, or other similar information. When I go to the site, there is not even a "contact us" button on the main page. Thanks for offering to move this discussion to the Talk header, it would be fine by me to do it now, but perhaps Rocksanddirt might want to weigh in. Risker (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Risker, Thank you for suggesting that I locate News'... editorial policy. I am very busy right now, but I will attempt to locate. Please look sometime tomorrow. Thank you. Hag2 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I previously stated: "Although Newsmaking News is certainly not The New York Times, nor The Washington Post, it does provide a degree of reliability: i.e. it maintains a position and stands legally with a prepared legal staff behind that position ."

I was asked subsequently by User:Risker to provide a link to the editorial policy of Newsmaking News".

I too found it difficult to locate a public statement regarding the above, thus I emailed both the writer and the publisher of Newsmaking News (contested items 1 and 2).

Both replied to me quite satisfactorily with private email communications which I will not make available to the public at this time. However both stated in words of their own that they stand behind whatever they write or publish on the Internet.

I urge any interested parties who may feel that the deleted references to the below items may not be reliable or credible write to Newsmaking News (or elsewhere as cited) with specific questions regarding verifiability and Wikipedia.

1. Who is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto?;
2. Is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto pulling the strings in the Betty Cloer murder trial?;
3. Another murder connected to the Inslaw case: see the Harry Martin reprint located at Michael Riconosciuto's website; and
4. The Mystery of the Diasappearing Actress Deepens: write to the San Francisco Sunday Examiner and request a photocopy of Larry Martz's January 11, 1981 article.

I have had my say and I do not wish at this time to pursue the matter further. As far as I am concerned, I can not support the writing of the article Michael Riconosciuto after 14:21, 5 October 2008. Hag2 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: As of the time-stamp of this notice, I have returned to active monitoring and editing of this article. —Dixie Brown (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. I've been watching it too, and noticed that Anne Teedham placed a Maintenance tag several weeks ago. I do not have problem with this; I think that it is a good idea. I added my name. ThsQ (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been much movement around here except you and Anne. It is worth mentioning that every one of the protestors who jumped in here on October 6, 2008, and made accusations of conflict of interests, and personal insulting remarks, has not reappear with any constructive contributions since that day. It is also worth mentioning that prior to October 6 none of those protestors participated in any of the formation of this article from the beginning. I am glad to see you insert a guideline in the maintenance tag about References. There are too many editors who edit material based upon their personal opinions without providing one iota of supporting documentation. Michael Riconosciuto will not be an easy article. It will be continually controversial. For example, many of his supporters feel that he was directly involved in both the October Surprise, and the Inslaw Case. But when you dig deep into the supporting documentation, his claims are only that claims supported by his own documentation, or the affidavits and testimony of less-than-reliable sources such as Robert Booth Nichols, Ari Menashe, Babayan, Bernneke, Chalmer Hayes, Ted Gunderson, James Orlin Grabbe and a bunch of other hucksters. How's that for a sideshow. —Dixie Brown (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

neutrality

Establishing a position of neutrality on a two-time, convicted, career criminal seems to be a stretch. Proponents of a neutral position need to cite some very good reasons why readers of this article should question the wisdom of two juries. Anne Teedham (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Riconosciuto's supporters should read Michael T. Hurley's 2004 book I Solemnly Swear, published by iUniverse, pages 163-183. Anne Teedham (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a reference to Riconosciuto's conviction in 1974 for burglary and bail jumping. Located at the Public Library of Law, a preview of his appeal to the conviction begins: "The defendant was charged with grand larceny. The state introduced evidence to show that the defendant had arranged for a man named Pearson to burglarize a residence and deliver the property to be stolen to him. There was testimony that following a burglary of the residence much of the stolen property was in the hands of the defendant, that the defendant had admitted he had hired Pearson to steal the property from the residence, and that the defendant had paid Pearson with drugs for committing the burglary. The defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted possessing the stolen property...." (you need to log in with an account, then use Riconosciuto in a search, then select the court case about State v. Brandon. Located in the Brandon case is a citation to Riconosciuto's 1974 appeal i.e. 529 P.2d 1134, STATE of Washington, v. Michael James RICONOSCIUTO, No. 2623--I.) Unfortunately, the reading of the complete case involves a hefty monthy subscription fee at the parent company Fastcase.com. When taken in light of his conviction for PCP in 1972, and then a repeat offense for methamphetamine in 1992, it would appear that Michael Riconosciuto is a three time loser. It also begins to shed some doubt on his "technical abilities" and on his "expertise with computers". One must wonder: how is it possible that this "10-year-old protege of a Nobel Laureate" found himself continually before state criminal courts and also had time for technical training in VAX//1130 computer systems? —Dixie Brown (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2009 (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) 15:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Riconosciuto is a "political prisoner"....

It has been over six months since User: Anne Teedham inserted the tag requesting a citation from Riconosciuto's supporters that Riconosciuto is a "political prisoner" (see here). Not one supporter has provided anything substantial to back up that claim.

There has been a great deal of criticism from those supporters though. But...as I said, nothing worth substance.

Today, I inserted a reference to Anita Langley's support (located at Conspiracy Planet) only because Langley has inserted herself as Riconosciuto's cousin, as his primary contact, and as his avid supporter.

Although the citation is to an unacceptable and lower standard than Wikipedia usually permits, I do not have a problem with allowing supporters to present their position. In the same vain, I do not have a problem with allowing Virginia McCullough's writings on Riconosciuto's background to be presented.

On October 6, 2008, a great number of critics attacked this article primary because one voice in the wilderness had a conflict with McCullough. At that time, I let the criticism ride because truthfully McCullough's website is a disorganized jumble of news and commentary which is slanted heavily in one direction. This really is not much different than mainstream newspapers (magazines etc.) and their editorial positions.

When the critics attacked this article, I had my say. I have not changed now from that position. The only loss being realized here is the biography of Michael Riconosciuto.

The writer McCullough has been involved with Riconosciuto both personally and professionally for over 15 years, and maintains the only archive of valuable, chronological information that I have been able to find. With regard to the reliability of her reporting, I have yet to find it inaccurate. Her critics have attacked her personally. Which is unacceptable. If they wish to dispute her reporting, then they should present factual material that disputes her facts, not her personality. (The same could be said about Kate Dixon, though Dixon has absolutely nothing to do with anything Riconosciuto.) Hag2 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hag, you may be interested in looking at Dixon's disbarment- http://desertfae.com/dixon.htm. Perhaps it'll let you know the "legal backup" VM supposedly has and what types of things that "attorney" has done in the past. Better check which side you're on. desertfae (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Hi, Dixie. I'm not too sure I understand what you are doing here. I've taken a hard look at your current editorial additions. The structural changes suggest that you intend to develop material around Cloer, Delahanty, electrostatic heat transfer, Wackenhut, etcetera. But, until, something is "written" about those areas, I do not believe that it is necessary to have their subheadings included in the main article. Also, I wonder if the details about Cloer and Delahanty are going to lead to controversy? We need to balance all writing of information carefully and according to the basic principles of Wikipedia. Originally, your material on Cloer and Delahanty suggested "unsupported innuendo". From the sound of what you have written above, your approach to this article may be too aggressive. Anne Teedham (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tag: Anne, I noticed that User:SlimVirgin made several sweeping alterations to Dixie's "editorial additions". I contacted [2] SlimVirgin requesting that she consult here first. I considered reverting but none of the alterations (neither Slim's nor Dixie's) are controversial so I doubt that anything is worth mentioning. On the other hand, Slim's approach was unsettling for two reasons: the "underconstruction" tag was clearly in place on the article, and the "maintenance" tag was clearly in place here. What's the sense of having those tags if they are ignored? I put the "underconstruction" tag back in place. Theo ThsQ (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

structure

Dixie, User:SlimVirgin removed your subheadings, but I don't think that the removal is all that important. I have a fair idea of where you're heading with these things. I was glad to see the headings though because it gave me areas to concentrate upon for background info. With regard to the overall structure: I did not like what Slim did with the subheadings so I altered them according to a chronological adjustment, and labeled them that way. My reasoning goes like this: the use of the word "biography" is silly; the whole article is his biography. Basically the dates are only incidental guide posts. After the article takes greater shape the actual subheadings will develop worthy titles of their own. I see no need at the moment to title something such as Biography, or Allegations, or Prison until all that becomes apparent. For example, in Prison we could shuffle the information about his first prison sentences into the same subsection with the third conviction but a shuffle like that would destroy the overall chronological development. I prefer to see the article developed chronologically first. Then if it is important to reorganize everything (say into subsections such as writings, inventions, crimes...) then we might consider that. Until then, though, chronology seems to be the way to go. ThsQ (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This article requires a major overhaul

Several areas of malicious tampering have occurred. Insertion of homicide accusations have been removed. References to a book, a paid work contracted by John P. Nichols, the subject of homicide investigations of which this individual was a party to, have been removed. Reference to expunged legal issues have been removed, the records have been expunged and references do not belong here, even if reported in error by media sources. References to mental illness cannot be countered without publishing personal documents and since there was no competency hearing during trial, the facts of competency were never put into evidence. Allegations of incompetence due to claims of intelligence matters are clearly overridden as the subject has provided ample FOIA documents with B1 exemptions, exemptions by Executive order and B3 exemptions, National Security redactions. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/foia/Winksatfriend (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

Several dead links have been removed. In addition, the section referencing Riconosciuto as a friend of Ben Kalka has been removed. Anyone familiar with this case would know that Kalka attempted to extort Riconosciuto and his word about Riconosciuto being suicidal should be construed as a threat, nothing friendly about it. The quoted article suggests homicide victim Paul Morasca was a friend of Kalka, yet a third party was required to make introductions. In light of the provable friendship existing between Paul Morasca and Michael Riconosciuto, this is clearly a false assertion. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/cabazon/servicecontracts/Winksatfriend (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

Prison

I can't find a citation for this, I checked to see the inmate finder didn't find him, it was used previousely but he is not showing now. Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I opened a discussion on your page, but should have checked here first. I'm new at this, so I'm still getting proper protocol figured out. While he should be showing on the locator, I don't really think pointing out a person's physical location is appropriate. Do you think this reference should be removed? Winksatfriend (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

We need a strong up to date citation to support such a statement that he is in jail, I would say considering the length of sentence and the dates that me is likely not in jail any more, if no one comes forward with a citation to support him at this time being in jail it clearly should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have any problem finding where he was located. Using the Bureau of Prison's Inmate Locator, you have two choices: Riconosciuto's Inmate No. 21309-086, or his full name Michael James Riconosciuto. Both searches produce the previously stated fact that Riconosciuto is incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island (San Pedro, California) until his release date 06-03-2017. You can't find a stronger citation then that. Riconosciuto was sentenced in 1992 to 30 years. 2017 probably accounts for his "early release date" if applicable.24.170.225.180 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Vague statements

Cabazon

Documents from Riconosciuto archives have been the subject of recently reopened cold case homicide investigations. [3] [4] [5]

The comment is very vague and I am left asking, so? why? what happened? when?

The citations are also weakly associated to the subject and the comment. The first one is what looks like a photocopy of some original document that is on a blind site and therefore untrustable, the third citation does no mention the subject at all and the second citation has these comments about the subject....

Computer programmer Michael Riconosciuto wrote in an affadavit that major modifications to the program were made in Indio.

"The parties that were involved in the distribution of this software were involved in covert operations. They were involved in Nicaragua and Central America. And they were involved in operation in the Middle East," said Riconosciuto in an 1993 interview.

I don't think this comment is worthy of inclusion under these circumstances. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this skeletal reference is not sufficient, it was late and there is much more that needs to be done to fix this area, I probably shouldn't have started the section until I had more information assembled. There are breaking stories, I may have messed up a link, I had an entirely wrong link up at first. I also linked to his personal document archive to establish that documents being discussed in media actually do come from him, although I would prefer to link to the specific documents, rather than a page. This section will be improved once there has been sufficient time to develop it, but if you think it should be removed until more links and verification can be put into place, then I don't have a problem with that. Also, if it is not appropriate to put links to a subject's personal documents in support of a statement or position, please let me know. If this person has a document archive which contains actual documentation (as opposed to personal research) related to ongoing media interests, it seems to be a non-typical issue. Thanks for your input. Winksatfriend (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

We don't have a deadline here, lets take our time and allow other comments, feel free to ask me for any guidance you need, we have tomorrow and the day after...and the day after if we like, regards, till tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For future reference

Berlet, Chip. "Big Stories, Spooky Sources." Columbia Journalism Review, May-June 1993. -Location (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Riconosciuto. 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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In the first paragraph showing reference sources ([3][4] validating Michael Riconosciuto's claim that he had been threatened by the DoJ for his allegations about Inslaw/Promis software theft and back-door modification have either been removed or changed and no longer provide reference sources. Unusually, one the sources is the Internet Web Archive which usually is a safe reliable archive for news articles etc.

Have these links been deliberately altered by someone? Or has someone removed the original articles from the Internet Web Archive? It's unusual for Web archival sites to remove archived Web pages especially news stories. 2A04:4A43:8ADF:F656:FD4F:1F1:D038:4B7 (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bua report in the lede?

It is unclear to me whether or not we should include the Bua report's critique of Riconosciuto in the lede.

See this discussion on the Mueller report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_264#Mueller_Report

I think the raw report should be moved from the lede. -- Hunan201p (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)