Talk:The Last Narc (TV series)

Primary sources introduced to describe documentary as "fiction"

This edit [1] changes the article so that we now describe Amazon's documentary as "fictional" in wikivoice, using WP:PRIMARY sources hosted at the personal advocacy website http://www.reneverdugo.org. The primary sourced documents were created 20 years before the production of the documentary. Reliable sourcing policy available here (WP:PSTS) explains that high-quality secondary or tertiary sources are the best sources to be used on Wikipedia, and in this case we already have those available to us, including recent sources, some of which are about the documentary [2][3][4], and some of which reference the same events [5][6][7][8][9][10]. -Darouet (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

—————

De facto whole TV series is based on a testimonies of these three witnesses: Jorge Godoy, Rene Lopez, Ramon Lira. They say, what they saw in 1985.

- At trial in 1992, they said there have never been any involvement of CIA.

- At article Blood in the Corns 2013, they suddenly say that CIA was involved.

- At The Last Narc in 2020, they suddenly say not only CIA was involved, but now also James Kuykendall.

So it absolutely doesn't matter, from which year is a source. They simply always say what they allegedly saw. Ask yourself, why these 3 witnesses change their testimonies, despite they have no new info.

I respect that Wiki has some rules. I don't know them, so I will not edit anything again. I'm not a wikipedian to talk about primary or secondary sources. But I'm a 'narco-journalist' who knows that The Last Narc is a fiction, which has been made only for Amazon's and Berrellez' profit. So I will give you some info a do with it, what you want.

Lie number 1: Félix Gallardo put a contract on Berrellez' head. Reality: It was different and less known trafficker. Source - Berrellez himself (here).

Lie number 2: Before Berrellez' assignment to Leyenda in 1989, DEA didn't have any witness of a torture and murder of Camarena. Reality: DEA kidnapped Rene Verdugo in 1986 and arrested Raul Lopez Alvarez in 1987. They both have been sentenced for Camarena's murder. Source - can be googled anywhere.

Lie number 3: Cuban Felix Rodriguez from CIA interrogated Camarena. Reality: a) DEA agent Robert Castillo made analysis of interrogator's voice and he identified Sergio Espino Verdin. Source - Castillo's testimony at a trial (starting at page 150). b) DEA agent Dale Stinson made analysis of interrogator's voice and he identified Sergio Espino Verdin too. Source - Stinson's testimony at a trial (same link, starting at page 222). c) DEA agent David Herrera translated tapes from Camarena's torture and according to him, interrogator was a Mexican and not Cuban. Source here. c) Even Jorge Godoy himself said at a trial that the interrogator was Sergio Espino Verdin. Source here at page 182. d) Moreover Berrellez' partner, DEA agent Salvador Leyva, who wrote and debriefed most of the informants in the Leyenda investigation, said that these 3 witnesses never said anything about CIA. Source here. By the way, here is a screenshot of Lira's, Godoy's and Lopez' testimonies, which are really signed by Leyva and Berrellez.

Lie number 4: DEA's director Jack Lawn instructed Berrellez to kidnap dr. Alvarez Machain, it would cost $250,000. Reality: It cost $50,000, Mexican Garate Bustamante told Berrellez about the possibility of kidnapping Alvarez Machain - Berrellez agreed and just received authorization from his DEA's office in LA and DEA Deputy Administrator Peter Gruden. Source - Berrellez himself here (starting at page 26) and here.

There are other and other lies. Somebody made some deeply analysis of The Last Narc with list of evidence - here. I was even able to find another lies during the watching The Last Narc. I think you noticed that it is not about credibility of source A AGAINST credibility of source B. It is about testimony of person A in year X AGAINST testimony of same person A in year Y. In other words, until 2013, nobody ever said anything about involvement of CIA in Camarena's murder. And from 2013 to 2020, there are only 3 people, who allegedly saw CIA agent torturing Camarena in 1985 and Berrellez everytime repeat their testimonies. But these 3 people already gave official testimonies at trial, we still can read it (Lira, Lopez, Godoy) and they never mentioned CIA. Did you also know that John Massaria, co-producer of The Last Narc said that Kuykendall was fired from DEA in 1985 few days after Camarena's abduction because he was trying to destroy whole DEA's investigation of Camarena, despite Kuykendall actually worked for DEA until 1989? Did you also know that current Leyenda supervisor made many calls to Amazon that The Last Narc makes false accusations, but they have never answered him? Do you think it is sign of quality journalism? Sign of credible documentary? Do you really think that director Tiller Russell made 14 years of Camarena's murder for this TV series? Read Blood on the Corn from 2013, they simply recycled all those informations + they added accusation that Kuykendall sold Camarena. Ask yourself, why these 3 witnesses never mentioned Kuykendall, for 35 years. Until moment, when Berrellez published his new book. Very short after Kuykendall became little famous thanks to Netflix' Narcos.

I'd write here for all day, how this show has nothing to do with a reality, but at least I posted few big examples. I just wanted to help. But do, what you want. SaintSanti (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@SaintSanti: your comments don't address the problem that http://www.reneverdugo.org is not a reliable source on wikipedia, and neither are the WP:PRIMARY sources you are linking to. Furthermore, speculation on the veracity of some claim by reference to primary sources is a form of original research by editors. We don't allow that because editors aren't experts and their opinions, while not meaningless, are nearly so: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." -Darouet (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: Each of us is talking about two different things. You are talking about wiki rules. I'm talking about story in that TV show.

Wiki rules - I don't want to contribute at Wiki, so I honestly don't care about Wiki's rules. But Wiki has some rules, you want to follow them, so I'm absolutely fine with that. I respect it.

Anyway, let me talk about that story again.

1) Do you think that Rene Verdugo's lawyer did falsify all those tons of material? Or are those scanned documents real and they are credible source? (I mean credible in our story, not by wiki's rules).

2) There are four people who allegedly know that CIA's agent was torturing Camarena. Calderoni, Godoy, Lopez, Lira.

- Calderoni: there has never been any interview with him, where he tells that. Only Berrellez says that Calderoni told him that CIA killed Camarena. And Berrellez made this statement only after Calderoni's murder. How credibly is this statement?

- Godoy, Lopez, Lira. If we assume that all those documents from 1992 are real, so we all can see that they all lie. Did they lie in 1992 at trial? Or did they lie in 2020 for TV show? Or in both cases? I think they have never said anything about CIA until The Last Narc in 2020, after 35 years. Berrellez himself made this accusation for the first time in 2013, after 28 years. He simply use them as a source of his claims. How credibly is their statement?

3) Another DEA agent, Salvador Leyva, who interrogated Godoy, Lopez and Lira together with Berrelez says that they have never said anything about CIA. By the way, we can even see signatures of both agents under Godoy's, Lira's and Lopez' testimonies. So now, who is lying? Who is more credible? Leyva, whos opinion is constant? Or Berrellez, who changes his testimony?

4) Berrellez became Leyenda supervisor in 1989. There were four different supervisors prior that. And there were many other after Berrellez (Leyenda investigation even runs until these days). And nobody ever made same claims like Berrellez. Very fist Leyenda supervisor said that Berrellez is a liar, very last Leyenda supervisor made many calls to Amazon that the show is a fake. So who should we believe? One agent Berrellez, who made shocking claim 28 years after Camarena's murder? Or all other agents, including his own partner or another Leyenda supervisors?

5) Credibility of Berrellez: according to three FBI's polygraph tests, Berrellez (and Manny Medrano) instructed witness to lie at a trial. And it wasn't the only witness who made this claim. Berrellez once said that Salcido Uzeta put a contract on his head, and for The Last Narc, he said that it was Felix Gallardo. Did he lie in Salcido's case, or in Felix' case? It's not about quality of sources, it's about that we can compare his own words with statements in past.

Berrellez said that DEA had no witness of Camarena's murder when he take over Leyenda investigation. I'm sorry, but even if you ignore everything what I say, you simply MUST agree that it is a pure lie. This claim from The Last Narc is a false. And even if only this is the only one lie from the whole TV Show, this documentary simply can't be marked as a true, without any notes, comments, critics or anything like that. Prior Berrellez' work as a Leyenda supervisor in 1989, DEA simply HAD TWO WITNESSES (Rene Verdugo and Raul Lopez Alvarez) and they BOTH have been SENTENCED for Camarena's murder! That's simply a fact, which can be verified at any source on the internet.

Berrellez simply many times glorified himself. He many times denied his own claims from the past. But even if you disagree, you simply can't ignore the previous paragraph.

There have never been any single DEA agent who identified Camarena's interrogator as a Cuban, or moreover CIA agent. I can repeat again that even Godoy himself told that the interrogator was Espino Verdin from DFS, but he changed his testimony for the first time in 2020 for the TV show. No agent ever said that Camarena investigated CIA in Veracruz. On the one hand there is a one single DEA agent, who many times denied himself, and who is a proven liar. On the other hand, there are all other DEA agents. Including man, who interrogated same witnesses.

Is it fair to make an article, which is only based on a claim one single person with very questionable credibility?

Wouldn't be fair to at least mention also the opinion of other Leyenda supervisors, his partner Leyva, or DEA voice analytics? Not to mention that Berrellez, as I said, denied even himself.. SaintSanti (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SaintSanti: thanks for your note. First, I guess it's worthwhile mentioning: you shouldn't describe living people as "liars" here. I know you say you aren't concerned with policy, but since the world and Wikipedia are full of policies, the relevant one is here is WP:BLPTALK: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate... BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages."

OK, with that out of the way, I'll just say that it wouldn't surprise me at all if — after a DEA agent was murdered and a very capable and dangerous organization might be involved (e.g. a cartel, or the DFS, or the CIA) — someone might testify in the trial, and then change or add to their testimony decades later. You say that this means people are "lying," but, no offense, this strikes me as a naïve attitude. It could be that someone told the whole truth in the beginning, but not in their later testimony, or that someone told partial truths in the beginning, and the whole truth later on — both scenarios are plausible. But honestly, if we're going to write an encyclopedia article about this topic, we can't just idly speculate: this is written for readers who are looking to see what experts have said about the topic. So finding those experts and getting their commentary is what we need to do. -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: Only my personal opinion. I simply don't believe these people because.. Berrelez: 1) according to a FBI's polygraph instructed witnesses to lie at a trial; 2) constantly glorifies himself; 3) changes own testimonies; 4) says crazy stories how he was able to find witnesses, despite witnesses themselves say that these stories are not true; 5) criticizes his own predecessors that they were not able to find at least one witness (what is a lie); 6) says the allegedly 'CIA truth' after 28 years (shortly after Rafael Caro Quintero was freed); 7) says the allegedly 'Kuykendal truth' after 35 years (shortly after Kuykendall became famous thanks to Narcos:Mexico); 8) says that we should never trust Kuykendall because 100% what he says is a lie 9) his witnesses change own testimonies (not only in CIA case, but they suddenly accuse Joaquin El Chapo Guzman for some murders, despite they have never mentioned him - why did they do it? Isn't the reason that El Chapo is very famous right now?); 10) his witnesses even deny each other in The Last Narc (Lopez said that Rene Verdugo told during the abduction: "Look, it is Camarena"; but according to Lira in a deleted scenes, it was Kuykendall who said that); 11) his witness Lira made claim during the trial that he saw current and former Mexico's presidents with a drug lord Fonseca, how they are counting money and they are talking about abduction of Camarena (sorry, it is so absurd!); 12) both Godoy and Lopez were arrested shortly before a trial, but Berrellez helps them, they had immunity, family relocated to USA, from wage $40/m they are now paid by DEA $3,000/m; 13) they all say that they never could talk about CIA because ... CIA, but in reality, there was an absolutely open discussion about CIA's involvement at trial in 1992; 14) none of the many other Leyenda supervisors says same story like Berrellez; 15) DEA's voice analysts said that the interrogator wasn't a Cuban (they even could say who exactly was it, like Godoy); 16) one The Last Narc producer said that Kuykendall was fired from DEA few days after Camarena's abduction, because he was helping Mexicans (but in a reality he was working for another years for DEA); 17) another The Last Narc producer said that he made 14 years of research and that they were under huge danger of Mexican cartels (despite nearly all informations are from the article The Blood on the Corn, published 7 years ago); 18) Amazon didn't answer on any calls from the current Leyenda supervisor; 19) Berrellez is criticized even by his former partner; 20) Medrano, like Berrellez, was also accused (and successfully, at least by a polygraph) from giving instructions to the witnesses to lie. After all, Berrellez' and Medrano's credibility is, at least, questionable + their witnesses made different testimonies in a past + producers refused to work with different agents and they moreover made false claims about Kuykendall + timing (very short after Narcos:Mexico and in year of a publication of Berrellez' book) + own opinion that CIA would never do something so stupid like torturing DEA agent + criticism of other DEA agents + some proven lies in a less important claims in The Last Narc = I personally think that this series is not a real documentary, but TV show made for a profit.

Anyway..: Experts = DEA agents and witnesses. One DEA agent and his 3 three witnesses say - CIA or Kuykendall killed Camarena X other DEA agents working with different (or even same) witnesses say - CIA or Kuykendall didn't kill Camarena. This is what experts (insiders) say. So I personally think it would be fair to give both of these groups the opportunity to be 'heard' in the article. And to be honest, despite I'm pretty sure that this TV show is a pure fiction made only for a profit, to call this show a 'fiction' is maybe too much. Some of the claims are truth, some are questionable. And some are false. Berrellez' claim that DEA had no witness before 1989 is a lie, isn't it? And at least because this case, I also think we can't call this show as a fully 'true'.SaintSanti (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I did eventually watch the documentary, and I don't recall the "authoritative voice" of the documentary endorsing all of Berrellez's statements. -Darouet (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is this docuseries "fictional," and should we include background section

Recent changes [11] now describe the 2020 Amazon docuseries The Last Narc (TV series) as "fictional" in WP:WIKIVOICE, mostly based on links to primary documents from the 1990s housed at http://www.reneverdugo.org.

Furthermore, a one-paragraph "background" section has been proposed (see text here [12]), using academic and newspaper sources that don't reference The Last Narc, but are on the same topic and present similar conclusions.

• Question 1 — should we describe the docuseries as "fictional" in Wikivoice, and should we cite http://www.reneverdugo.org as a source on this page?
• Question 2 — should we include this [13] one-paragraph "background" section mentioned above?

Comments are appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No we should not call the series fictional nor cite reneverdugo.org, and Yes we should include the proposed background section. http://www.reneverdugo.org is a personal advocacy website and not a reliable source; it hosts WP:PRIMARY sources which are transcripts of testimonies from the early 1990s that should not be cited here. The background section cites sources that do not reference The Last Narc, but on established media and historians who are experts, writing on the exact same topic. The background section thus does what it should: it provides readers with highly relevant context. Also, the proposed section is just one paragraph, easily satisfying the minimum of WP:DUE weight for this topic. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes We should call the series fictional and cite reneverdugo.org, and No we should not include the proposed section, The testimonies and how they contradict key elements of the documentary are important to include, None of the people on that background section seem to be aware of how much the conspiracy theories/stories have changed over the years. (ex: the alleged involvement of James Kuykendall who Berrellez never accused until recently, Kuykendall denies any involvement and is suing Berrellez and Amazon.) Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Third Option this is certainly not a 100% pure documentary, but calling it "fictional" stops it from being a documentary at all – which also leaves a false impression. Therefore in my opinion the introduction should read: The Last Narc is a docuseries with fictional elements about the 1985 death... This ensures that the reader expects a depiction based mainly on verifiable events, but with fictional parts added – instead of expecting something akin to a fake documentary, which would be my takeaway from the current wording. P.S. Question 2: I have no qualms with a background section that is reasonably well sourced. --Sprachraum (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sprachraum: Thanks for this. What are the fictional elements you're thinking of? According to Variety [14], The four-part series, released in July, tells the true story of Enrique “Kiki” Camarena..." "Collider" uses similar language [15]: "The Last Narc aims to tell the true story of who this fallen hero really was, and what really happened to him once he made life difficult for drug cartels." The docuseries doesn't involve any acting or fictional recreations, for instance: just interviews with those involved. I think if we write "fictional elements" we need a citation and need to be specific about what's fictional. -Darouet (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: Well I wasn't thinking of "acting or fictional recreations", which I would have called a docudrama. But "a true story" does not automatically equate to a pure documentary, as the insert "based on a true story" at the beginning of thousands of fiction films should tell you... Certainly Amazon is being sued right now for alleged false depictions, and the article as it stands contains a whole paragraph called "Fictional events". The introduction should at least alude to this state of the debate in some way. If you are not happy with my first suggestion, how about: The Last Narc is a docuseries with alleged fictional elements, about the 1985 death... --Sprachraum (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sprachraum: the "fictional events" paragraph was controversially added a few days ago, citing the website reneverdugo.org, which isn't a reliable source; certainly Amazon and the DEA agents interviewed in the documentary state that their account is true, not fictional. We need rigorous sourcing for the statement "fictional" or "alleged fictional elements." -Darouet (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: I would consider the Variety article you linked to enough sourcing for "alleged" – there certainly is an unresolved dispute about factuality, and the article should reflect that. Of course it doesn't have to do that in the first line, but your appeal on the film project talk page sure sounded like you were having trouble getting some of the above users to abstain from the "fictional docuseries" misnomer, so I tried to look for a compromise solution that both sides could live with, and that doesn't distort the situation. I'll leave you to it now. --Sprachraum (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• No to both because inserting "fictional" is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Performing a WP:SET, I do not see the term "fictional" being used in combination with this title, but I see numerous uses of "docuseries". This does not mean that there cannot be inaccuracies, but terms like docuseries, documentary, and biographical are used in a nominal sense. We have plenty of biopics that take a lot of dramatic license, but they're still called biopics. But, this does not prevent discussion in the article body about the accuracy of the presentation (which can be summarized in the lead section in addition to other key points). In addition, WP:FILMHIST can apply to TV series too; we as Wikipedia editors cannot play armchair historians. We should use sources that specifically scrutinize the accuracy of the docuseries, and/or link to the real-event articles with all their real-world details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Erik: I agree completely regarding the first "no," but this is the paragraph you're saying we should exclude with your second "no:" [16]. Just making sure that was clear? -Darouet (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, readers can refer to the articles themselves through links per MOS:FILM#Documentaries. Like for example, I was reading about Bridgerton and clicked on Regency era to read about that background. I don't think a "Background" section in this article is needed. If anything, perhaps the lead section of Kiki Camarena needs to more fully reflect the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• NO to both because wtf. Documentaries cannot be fiction. Regarding the whole nonsense section I removed: asserting that something didn't happen based on your analysis of PRIMARY court transcripts, in opposition to secondary and tertiary sources, is the worst OR SYNTH bullshit. If you read one blog that says the facts presented in the docuseries are inaccurate, how sad. But who cares: I could make a website disputing the accuracy of any documentary. To then use that in Wikivoice goes against all policy. If RS appear disputing it, you then create a controversy section like a normal person following MOS. Kingsif (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I agree completely regarding the first "no," but this is the paragraph you're saying we should exclude with your second "no:" [17]. Just making sure that was clear? -Darouet (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This is a piece of media, not an event with precursory context. Anything relevant about the incident was presumably discussed in the docuseries and thus should be included in the synopsis section; if another detail is need to contextualize, it should also go there (perhaps as a footnote). Furthermore, that background paragraph isn't using sources that relate to the docuseries; some such sources are acceptable if they are supplementary to sources that do connect them, otherwise it is, again, OR and SYNTH. Regardless of the fact it's inappropriate to have a 'background' to a piece of media, if there's no source telling us what information is relevant, why is there a whole paragraph on an event? Again, if there are RS saying that people dispute the narrative presented in the docuseries, this can be covered in a controversy section (or if the RS coverage is only brief, in a paragraph of the response section): we will document the facts as reliable sources report them, and attribute controversial statements. As it is, editors here should please follow the film and TV MOS as a basic, and not keep adding unsourced POV in Wikipedia voice. Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif and Erik: understood, your arguments are reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Hey men, I'm sorry that I started all of this. It seems it is only my fault :( I want to be fair:

I won't tell how I think this series should be called. I'm not English-native speaker and I don't know Wiki rules. But if word 'docuseries' doesn't automatically mean that given TV series is 100% true, then I personally would accept it without any problem. I'm sorry that I'm writing it again, but if you are gloryfying yourself with claim "before I started to investigate this case, DEA had no witness of Camarena's murder", but in reality DEA had two guys who has been sentenced for murder of Camarena, one simply can't mark this show as a 100% true (not to mention other claims).

So if whole article is in a way: The Last Narc says ABC; but there are also critics and they say XYZ, I'm totally fine. Prior to my stupid edit, there wasn't any section reserved for the critics (except Kuykendall's plaint).

If I would be allowed to say, what should roughly be written in the section for the critics, I'd say:

• David Herrera, DEA agent who translated the interrogation tapes said that the interrogator wasn't a Cuban, but a Mexican.
• William Coonce (first Leyenda supervisor), Steve Paris (current Leyenda supervisor) or Jack Lawn (former DEA director) supported Kuykendall in his legal action against Amazon. (maybe it would be enough to say "other DEA agents supported.." because they are in most cases same like in a next article)
• Former DEA directors Robert Bonner (who himself called CIA the drug traffickers) and Jack Lawn, first Leyenda supervisor William Coonce or Berrellez' former partner Salvador Leyva (who interrogated same sources) oppose the Berrellez' claims.
• Berrellez is the only Leyenda supervisor who has made these findings (this is problematic with a source because most of Leyenda supervisors don't comment anything; we only know that they have never published any allegations like Berrellez).
• DEA already identified the interrogator of Camarena in a past - Sergio Espino Verdin.

• Godoy, Lopez and Lira didn't mention Félix Rodríguez, Jaime Kuykendall or Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán in their trial testimonies in 1992.

I'm sorry, but the official documents from the trial are perfectly credible. But if you don't want to use them because Wiki's rules, I absolutely understand you and respect it. In that case, you can use any article from LA Times or NY Times, they are still online.

Sorry, men! SaintSanti (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References