Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2020 [1].

Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents

edit
Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A short article about an instructive episode of recent Latin American history; Cuba seized two freighters flying Panamanian flags, accusing them of piracy, and a controversy followed. The article has been through a military history A-class review. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion I started, with Coord permission for nom, moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Pass, per my comments at ACR (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

edit

I examined this in considerable detail at Milhist ACR, all my queries ans comments were addressed, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SG

edit

I will be reviewing this article in the context of the faulty MILHIST A-class pass of Manuel Noriega, with similar issues as discussed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1, which may be of interest to Peacemaker67. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal, for complete reworking to examine sourcing. My concerns are similar to those listed at the MAN peer review; the sourcing, and the way sources are used, present a POV. Sourcing needs to be scrutinized for bias and accuracy and balanced with other sources.

Issues can be seen in this passage:

According to reporter John Dinges both freighters were being used by Cuban exiles to launch machine-gun attacks on Cuban government targets.[4] Verne Lyon, a one-time CIA agent, wrote in his memoir that the two boats were run by the CIA, and referred to the Johnny Express as a CIA "mother ship".[6] A 1997 biography of former Director of Central Intelligence and US President George H. W. Bush, in discussing his relationship with Manuel Noriega, also stated that the two freighters had been used to launch speed-boat attacks against Cuba.[7]

  • As described at the MAN PR, Dignes is not a scholarly source, had a book to sell, and one reviewer of books about Noriega mentions "trendy journalists who want to blame Noriega on the U.S.". Sourced to him is that the freighters were used to "launch machine-gun attacks on Cuba government targets", while other sources say the freighters may have been used to "land insurgents" (that is, Cuban exiles).[2] Two very different things.
  • Verne Lyon was discredited and imprisoned; he had an anti-CIA motive.
  • The (unnamed) 1997 biography (which should be named, Parmet, who by the way refers to Noriega as "the bastard child of an accountant and maid") repeats the "machine gun raids" ... and apparently sources it also to Dinges.

So, there's an entire paragraph with damning conclusions that trace back to Dinges and a discredited CIA operative.

I am happy to dump Lyon, and to name Parmet where he is first mentioned (he is, in fact, mentioned at the second instance). Dinges is not a scholarly source. However, there are precious few reliable sources covering this material at all, and when no others contradict Dinges, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to use him with in-text attribution. This is especially the case when Parmet, a respected historian, cites Dinges for this assertion. The other sources which say insurgents were landed source it to the Panamanian commission. This assertion is also reported in the article, also with attribution, because none of it is good enough to state in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But then we have the problem that Parmet had no access to classified documents. So Parmet is merely repeating Dinges’s claims, so attributing it to Parmet would not solve the problem. It is a Dinges claim, with no other backing. (The discredited CIA operative aside, who did prison time, right?) And if we have claims made only by Dignes, are they UNDUE? Perhaps this article can be written after FOIA reveals more facts to replace rumor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is made by Dinges, but it was cited by a mainstream historian. It is not equivalent to a claim that is completely ignored by others. Parmet may not have had access to documents, but he chose to cite Dinges, and did not challenge Dinges's assertion in doing so. I do not believe topics that have substantive and detailed coverage should not have articles just because the relevant material (if any exists) has not been declassified. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentences obscure important facts (POV)

  • In December 1971, the freighters Leyla Express and Johnny Express were seized by Cuban gunboats off the coast of Cuba. The Leyla Express was stopped off the Cuban coast on December 5; the Johnny Express was intercepted by gunboats near the island of Little Inagua in the Bahamas ten days later. The Johnny was WELL off the coast of Cuba, that is, the Cubans fired upon a ship and captured it from Bahamian waters. Well, yes, the Bahamas are "off the coast of Cuba", but the opening sentence downplays the seriousness of strafing a ship in Bahamanian waters, injuring its crew, and hauling them back to Cuba, captive.
    I disagree that this downplays anything; it explicitly says the Johnny Express was captured in the Bahamas, and the very next sentence mentions the injuries, substantially before any Cuban justifications or rationalizations. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not plainly stated that Cuba strafed and commandeered a ship that was in Bahamanian waters, Injured the crew, and with the Captain reporting he was dying, hauled it back to Cuba. “Off the coast of Cuba” is technically true, but misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the concern is with "Off the coast of Cuba", I have simply omitted it. The locations are now stated explicitly in the second sentence. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map showing Little Inauga in relation to Cuba, the Bahamas and Floriday should be redone; it's unclear.
    I can request other maps be made, and would appreciate suggestions as to how they can be made clearer, because it seems perfectly clear to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go to Google maps and look for Little Inagua, then zoom out just enough to pick up Miami and Haiti, the relationship with the Bahamas and Cuba is clear. Then you only heed to highlight Little Inagua in red. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Bahamas, The-CIA WFB Map (2004).png is such a map, but I do not see it being an improvement, as it is less detailed. I am happy to add it as an additional map. Buidhe, apologies for the many pings, but you've done the image review, so I think your opinion is required. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but announced that José Villa, the captain of the Johnny Express, would face trial as he had confessed to being an agent of the CIA. POV: announced that they claimed he had confessed to being an agent. ("Confessions" have a way of happening with Cuban intelligence, that is not pretty.) For example, this source states it more neutrally ... "but the skipper of the Johnny Express was held for trial, reportedly having confessed to being an agent for the CIA" from [3]. POV, stating in WikiVoice that he had confessed, when that is based on Cuban claims.
    The statement is very much in the voice of the Cuban government; the entirety of it is covered by the "announced that". If we need to reword to make that clearer I am happy to do so, but it is most certainly not a claim made in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewording to make it clear it is a Cuban claim would be a good start. If you could come up with a Spanish name for the “Commission”, we should be able to locate more facts about José Villa’s side of the story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We're saying the Cuban government announced it; to me that's clear; I have reordered it to make it doubly clear. As to the commission, I wish I had its name, but the sources don't say. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Panamanian mission which investigated the incident concluded, based on the ships' logs, that the vessels had in fact brought insurgent forces to Cuban territory, and that the Cuban government's accusations were accurate. and A commission from Panama subsequently visited Cuba to investigate the case. Based on examinations of the ships' log books, the commission concluded that the ships had in fact been engaged in bringing insurgent forces to Cuban territory, and that the Cuban government's charges were accurate.[4] This is cited to Gehring, see note 180. at 317-18. 324. What does Gehring say? I don't have access. And what date was this Panamanian mission? Under Noriega's rule, or after? In other words, if it was under Noriega, well, of course ... he struck a deal, negotiating between the US and Cuba, to get Villa released. What was included in that deal? Some sort of admission? We need better detail from the original quoted source, and better Panamanian retrospective or scholarly sources, on this Commission, who was on it, who it reported to, etc. and whether making this claim was part of the deal struck with Fidel.
    I have now located a copy of Gehring, who gives no footnote or source about this information, as the JAG paper had a different purpose ... to investigate the laws regulating piracy. It gives no further information about this Commission.[5] The article has a big hole for the reader who wants to understand why Fidel let Villa go, and what he got in exchange for the "confession". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have noted, Gehring pretty much says what's in the article. A retrospective such as you desire hasn't been found, and I investigated the availability of sources thoroughly. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gehrig was not investigating the veracity of the claims. He was investigating what Marine Law has to say in a case with these claims. That there was an alleged but as yet mysterious Commission, and this is the only mention, seems UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing along rumor from the Miami Herald; unsure this belongs in an encyclopedia, or a Featured article, but I can be convinced.

  • Source: In exile circles here, Santiago Babun is believed to have been a ranking agent for the CIA in Oriente Province until he left the country for the United States in 1960.
  • Article: Among Cuban exiles in Miami, Santiago Babún, one of the brothers, was believed to have been an agent of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) while in Cuba.[6]
    I agree it is rumor, and would be happy to omit it, but I would point out that it was mentioned by a US newspaper that has no reason to be sympathetic to Cuba or Noriega or anyone else, and that it is a rumor among the Cuban exile community, not among Castro's sycophants. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV, unbalanced. The article is painting a specific picture by omission.

  • Article: The Cuban government believed that a boat owned by one of the brothers was responsible for shelling the Cuban village of Samá, on the northern coast of Oriente Province, in October 1971; several people were reported to have been killed in the attack.[1]
  • Source: Informed sources said that the Cuban Government apparently believes that a vessel owned by the Babún brothers was involved in the shelling from the sea last October of the village of Samá near the port of Puerto Padre, on the northern coast of Oriente Province. Several persons were said to have been killed. Although the Babún brothers are known to be opposed to the Cuban regime and, according to informants here, have in the past provided assistance for anti‐Havana activities, the best information Here is that the Semi raid did not involve Babun vessels.[7]
    An error of omission that is easily corrected. The contrary position is in any case presented only as the Cuban government's belief, not as an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy fix, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, an easy fix, now implemented. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are samples only, indicative of the same issues seen at Noriega. I have not completed an exhaustive review as I did at Noriega, but based on both, I suggest the article should be withdrawn and completely reworked, with an eye towards better investigation of the sourcing, working with the several knowledgeable editors from the talk page who are well versed in CIA issues. This article is POV because of poor sourcing, and failure to completely examine sources and claims, and by text omitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I dispute this oppose, and I specifically disagree that the article is POV. I have dredged every available bit of reliably sourced information, and have been careful to provide in-text attribution where required. I am grateful for SG's attention to the Noriega article, where she has pointed out substantive new source material that should have been considered. I cannot improve the sourcing here when no new material has been shown to exist, and if more sources are found, I will do my best to incorporate them. Yes, Dinges isn't a scholarly source, since he was working as journalist at the time, but he did subsequently hold a professorship in journalism, at Columbia, and I hold that he is an entirely reasonable source in the absence of anything superior. I wish there were better sources, but if the available sourcing here isn't good enough for FAC, that's a very discouraging thought to anyone seeiking to write FAs about history in the developing world. I am confused as to the "several knowledgeable editors from the talk page" you are referring to; there's nobody commenting on the talk page at all besides Canadian Paul, who reviewed this at GAN. Perhaps the reviewers at ACR, who were no lightweights either, would be willing to weigh in; @Buidhe, Zawed, Hog Farm, and Peacemaker67: thoughts? Buidhe, I'd be interested in your perspective in particular, as you did the source review at ACR. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically a sub-article to Manuel Noriega, which is highly slanted towards Dinges; I am referring to the three other editors active on that talk page, who all seem to have a good handle on the CIA issues and other nuance. I have not pinged them to this FAC; perhaps you would like to ask them if they are able to locate further sources or can shed further information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly that this is a sub-article of Noriega. His role here is important but this was a substantive incident before he got involved. The coverage this has received in the military history journals has nothing to do with Noriega; the coverage this received in the media occurred before Noriega got involved. Dinges constitutes only a fifth of the citations in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm not persuaded by this oppose. There may be a few things that can be improved, but the sourcing for this incident is so sparse (I also looked for additional sources, not finding them) that the right thing to do is to repeat what sources say, attributing as necessary. This is what Vanamonde has tried to do. I'm also not convinced that Dinges isn't a RS. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, as an example, if there is no information other than one source—which does not give its sources—on the Panama Commission ... including no Panamanian source ... how is it not UNDUE to include that information? One example. I can ask similar on others. What is the source of that information, and what do scholarly sources say about the makeup of this Commission and its relationship to Torrijos/Noriega wrt the negotiations to release Villa? I have not said Dignes can be disregarded as a source; I have observed that Wikipedia is telling his journalistic partisan story, and giving it UNDUE weight, without seeking out other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is, if only one source refers to this Commission ... whose name in Spanish is not even identified, so it cannot be located in Spanish-language sources ... and for which there is no other trace, is it not UNDUE to even mention it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is undue. Due weight is determined by prevalence in reliable sources. If one reliable source is all that covers this facet of the topic, then it is not undue to use it. The same goes for Dinges above. I would weigh any more scholarly sources above Dinges or the military history review, but as Buidhe said, I cannot cite sources that do not exist. Also, I acknowledge that Dinges is not a scholarly source, but he's no lightweight; he held a professorial position at Columbia, some years after publishing this book; he was also a high-ranking editor at NPR. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other items you have left off of Dignes's bio. And we still don't have even a name for this "Panamanian Commission"; we don't know that sources don't exist, but we can't even look for them with a name, because the source who mentions it give NO trace, footnote, or indication from whence came that information. Hence, UNDUE. We have a lot of rumor here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are items of his biography that somehow change his reliability as a source, then I would like to hear them explicitly; I still see no reason to discount him as a source. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
edit

(after edit conflict) From reading some of the other sources, I also find:

The source does not state this
  1. and that the Cuban government's charges were accurate.[3] (The Cuban goverment made many charges; the source does NOT say anything about all of them being accurate... this is editorializing.)
    Not editorializing, merely insufficient precision in wording, which I have now fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jorden (who should be identified as the Panamanian ambassador at the time ... he is downplayed as "a diplomat") in one case does not need to be attributed (information from multiple sources, not just his opinion), and in another case, he never stated that it was "ironic" ... this is editorializing, not verified by source.
    He did not say it was ironic. Dinges saw his quote, and described it as noting the irony. I can word this differently to make it clear it was Dinges' assessment of Jorden's writing, but the content is supported by the cited sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In sources but omitted from article
  1. From Gehrig, owners stated that the vessel was returning from a charter to Haiti
    Added. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. US denied the ships were carrying arms or agents
    Added. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Welles and others mention the seriousness of Villa's wounds, he reported blood everywhere, the Johnny was unarmed, but was strafed by machine gun and rammed
    Villa's wounds are already mentioned; severity added; ramming and strafing are already in the article; machine gun detail added. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Welles says Villa and three others retained when other crew was released; the article says only Villa was retained.
    Welles is the only one I've seen who mentions this; Jorden, Villa, Gehring, etc, make no mention, so I do not think this is something that should be stated, or if it is it cannot be in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading
  1. "off the coast of Cuba" ... all sources state that the vessels were not in Cuban waters, and Johnny was in Bahamian territory. The first sentence is misleading by omission
    "Off the coast of Cuba" is also what all the news sources use, and so if I am being misleading, it's only because so was the NYT. Regardless, I have now added the fact that the first capture occurred in international waters to the lead and the body; the second one occurred in Bahamanian territory, as already stated. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better sourcing/citation needed
  1. Landing of insurgents should be cited to Gehrig, p 324. We still have no idea where Gehrig got this information, nor what this "Panamanian Commission" was. There are surely Spanish-language sources if we had even a name for this commission. If there is no other source, UNDUE.
    I have added Gehring as a source, but I don't see how the original citation was insufficient; it is reliable. If Gehring is a reliable source, and I think he is, I see no reason to consider this undue. If he's not a reliable source, we should not be using him for any of the information. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dinges is used to describe the "face saving" issue re Villa when Jorden gives a fuller account of that ... why is Jorden not used instead? There was cleary a deal with Fidel ... what did he get in return? (eg, Commission findings). (Curious why Jorden isn't used at Manual Noriega.)
    There are two pieces of detail Jorden mentions that can be added, and I have now done so. I cannot speculate as to what Castro got in return, and in the absence of sources I believe such speculation it out of scope. Again, when Dinges is a priori reliable and has met the requirements of the source review at ACR, I do not see a reason to remove him. Also, Jorden may be a reliable witness, but he is also not an independent source for events he was involved in, and I am not comfortable using him to the exclusion of other sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SYNTH
  1. Neither Johnsten nor Hersh ever mention Leyla or Johnny Express ... they are used to synthesize a conclusion here.
    There is no synthesis, because there's no conclusion there not contained in a single source (Dinges). Johnston is used just for the date, while Hersh is used to avoid citing very many pages of Dinges. Hersh can easily be replaced; both can be removed if we decide we're content with less context about Noriega. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing
  1. Historian Herbert Parmet wrote that Noriega played an important, and possibly decisive, role in the negotiations. This is exact wording from the source that needs to be quoted. Also, Jorden seems to have a slightly different take on that, and other negotiations he mentions are left out. Why is Parmet puffed up as a "historian", while Jorden (ambassador) is downplayed as a "diplomat"? Jorden was there; Parmet was not, and Parmet did not have access to classified documents.
    That is four words, but okay, quoted. Jorden is making the same basic points; Noriega was sent, and persuaded Castro to release Villa into Panamanian custody. "Historian" and "diplomat" are the most logical and concise descriptors of Parmet's and Jorden's respective jobs. I disagree that they are minimizing or puffing up anything. I have added Jorden's position of US ambassador at the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because similar issues were found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1, I don't believe this article can be promoted without a complete check for source-to-text integrity. The two articles are related via Noriega, CIA and Dinges POV; the Dignes POV is that the US created the Noriega problem, he is presented as only a stooge of the US (another editor's words, not mine), and this incident is described in a way to lay that foundation.

Between the two of them, POV is introduced in several ways: a) text not verified by sources; b) selection of sources (with UNDUE weight given to some); c) sources excluded or information from sources excluded; and d) text in sources not represented fully or accurately.
I don't have Dinges, but a complete review of every page used from Dinges should be undertaken based on what I have found. Using sources to state one side of a story presented in those sources, when those very sources offer alternate info (eg, Bush on not being able to overrule the Army at the MAN article and statements that the Semi raid did not involve Babun vessels being left out are considerable omissions, leading me to believe an indepth source review and reworking of the article is needed. Dignes is preferenced over other sources, and our articles reflect his POV. Some sources used are only restating what Dignes has stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I had done my level best to represent the available sources, and where details that had been left out were point out by you and others, I have added it. I do not agree that the few omissions noted above, which I have now addressed, amount to a wide-ranging neutrality problem. I cannot add sources that have not been shown to exist. I still see no reason to discount Dinges as a source, especially when his book has been cited 100+ times in scholarly work. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said Dinges is not a reliable source. He is not a scholarly source, in relation to other untapped (or lesser used) scholarly sources at Manuel Noriega. I have said he is given undue weight in both articles. His biases are apparent in his Wikipedia bio; we do not require that sources be free of bias, but here we need a careful weighting of sources to make sure we are giving due weight to all points of view.
I will inquire tomorrow how long it will take my local library to get me a copy of Dinges. Once I have it, I will re-read the entire article to see where we stand. I will let you know when I can get hold of Dinges.
I continue to believe since we have zero information about this Panamanian Commission ... other than a passing unfootnoted mention in one source, that it should be left out. And I continue to believe sources might be found, for example, by following up on Gehrig. Sometimes letters have to be written to attain Featured status, and doing so is often productive. If you can get me a name of this Commission, or members, I could have better luck in Spanish-language sources. For all we know at this point, it was MAN’s brother, Luis Carlos Noriega. Fidel did not let Villa go for nothing, after stalking the ship for weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing 2
edit

Vanamonde93, I do not know which version of Dignes to request. The citations say the 1990 version was used, but the ISBN points to the 1991 paperback. If I get the wrong version, I won’t necessarily have the same page numbers. There is an error in the citation, I believe. Which version was used? (Please doublecheck all ISBNs at MAN too??) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The version of Dinges I am using is the 1990 version. An ISBN converter seems to have led to my error. I am also happy to email scans of a couple of pages if you would prefer that. I can't scan the whole book, though, so if you want more than a few pages asking a library would seem necessary. I also do not expect different editions to diverge in any substantive way; page number discrepancies are easy to figure out. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on talk here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead:

  • The US asked the Panamanian government of Omar Torrijos to negotiate his release. Rómulo Escobar Bethancourt and Manuel Noriega traveled to Cuba, where they negotiated Villa's release into Panamanian custody, in return for which criminal charges were brought against Villa in Panama, though he was released without being convicted.

Is this correct? Was he released without being convicted, or was he released without even being tried, since, as Jorden explains, it was probably always clear that a US citizen could not be tried in Panama for alleged activities against Cuba. (And since Fidel was too crafty/savvy to fall for such a ploy to begin with, there is probably still something missing in this story.)

Also, another reason why we shouldn't be trying to correct an article with substantial issues during a FAC:

  • According to William Jorden, a US diplomat who was the country's ambassador to Panama during the incident,

It is my understanding that Jorden was on the National Security Council during Nixon, and was LATER ambassador to Panama, during the Canal Treaty negotiations. What am I missing?

Why is this in the article; that is, what is the reader supposed to understand from this?

This is not what the New York Times reported:

  • According to the New York Times, vessels owned by the Babún brothers did not participate in the raid on Samá.

The NYT is not in a position to make that statement so authoritatively, nor did they. The NYT reported: "the best information Here is that the Semi raid did not involve Babun vessels". I suggest rephrasing to ... According to the New York Times, there was no information corroborating that vessels owned by Babún brothers participated in the raid on Samá ... or something of the nature.

  • adjusted. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ironic" is still in the article; that is editorializing.
    As I've said, it's what Dinges wrote. I have reworked it to make this clear.
  • Yes, using Hersh and Johnsten (which make no mention of this incident) to build a case about Noriega's relationship with the US or the CIA is SYNTH. It is using sources that don't mention this issue to buttress Dinges' POV.
    I disagree; the connection is made by Dinges; Johnsten is only used for the date. Besides, the existence of Noriega's relationship with the CIA is hardly controversial. Hersh has been omitted. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still in the article:

  • In discussing the relationship between former Director of Central Intelligence and US President George H. W. Bush and Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega in a 1997 biography of Bush, historian Herbert Parmet stated that the two freighters had been used to launch speed-boat attacks against Cuba.[6]

Parmet, who had no access to classified documents, is merely repeating Dinges' claim, which is already stated in the previous line.

There is an if-then logical problem here:

  • A case study of the incident in the US armed forces journal The JAG Journal stated that the violent actions of the armed personnel carried by the Leyla Express and the Johnny Express met the definition for piracy. However, it stated that since the actions of the two ships had the objective of overthrowing the Cuban government, they constituted political actions, and therefore could not be considered acts of piracy.[3][17]
Gehrig is looking at the maritime law in terms of whether Cuba can characterize the actions as piracy, and whether that allows them to seize a ship not in their waters and impose punishment. IF they were pirate ships yada yada, THEN according to Gehrig ... yet, we are stating in Wikipedia's voice that Gehrig endorses that these violent actions actually happened. Gehrig is arguing what the law allows for, not endorsing that the allegations are true ... some "if" or "alleged" or "claimed" or "such as" is missing from this sentence. Example: JAG argued that violent actions as alleged by Cuba met the definition for piracy, but cannot be considered piracy when their objective is political.
I do not believe that FAC should be a place for pulling articles through when the issues are significant. The article will be better re-worked off-FAC. I continue to suggest archiving the FAC, and bringing in the other MAN editors for additional eyes, with closer review after you clarify which is the correct version of Dignes. We are still at a place where each time I look at the article, there are still issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gehring is relying on the Panamanian commission's report. I've adjusted the wording to make this clearer. I disagree with your views of the role of FAC, but that's neither here nor there; I will work on this until the coordinators indicate that they are going to archive it, and they did not do so after my message below. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I have been to the library; this article is neither comprehensive (1b) nor well researched (1c). I did not order Dinges because I still don't know which version to order. There are numerous errors or contradictions in this article which need to be sorted via some rather intensive research (I have only scratched the surface). It should be neither GA or A-class. Some notes from newspapers:

  • José Villa's full name should be used (as in all hispanic names, because there are so many common names)-- his name is José Villa Díaz.
  • Multiple sources say he was Spanish born; this article says he was Cuban born-- needs to be sorted.
    The most reliable sources I have say he was Spanish; some sources do say or imply he was Cuban, but at the moment, they are ones I would assign less weight to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple sources explain that the crew was released at different times ... some right away, some later, at times four were still held, and perhaps one died in custody.
  • The "Panamanian commission" appears to have been headed by Jorge Ilueca, one of Noriega's later "presidents". It appears that it did not find what this article states it found. It seems to have had three members, including Bethancourt and Carlos Gonzalez de la Lastra, who examined the ships' logs. The Cuban government invited them via the Mexican Foreign Ministry. As an example of information not well researched, the Cuban claim was that this ship participated in the 1971 Oriente issue, the logs did not reveal that. The logs revealed the ships were in the area on other dates. And "close to the areas" claimed by the Cuban govt on other dates. This article overstates the connections. I am unsure if we can use printed excerpts of Panamanian radio broadcasts gathered by the CIA: [8]. But best I can tell, that's all we've got. If we can't use it, then we need to figure out what to do with Gehrig's statement, which is also overstated in this article versus what he wrote. The "subsequently" in the article should be dated ... they were there fairly quickly because of intervention of Mexico.
  • Ilueca negotiated the release of some of the prisoners.
  • Mexico's ambassador was involved-- never mentioned in the article, which seems to emphasize Noriega's role while ignoring others.
  • A better description for the first sentence would be "outside of Cuban waters" for both cases.
  • Details about the ships are left out (eg, one was designed to carry crude, what size they were, etc)
  • An ample chronology of who was released where and when is available in newspapers, but is not included in this article.
  • An ample discussion of the charges against Villa is available, and this article appears to misrepresent not only what he was tried for, but that he was convicted but released early because of the considerable time he was in jail in Cuba and in Panama.
  • Multiple sources discuss names and nationalities of crew members (relevant since one seems to have died in Cuban custody ... a few of the crew members were Cuban)

There are considerable untapped news sources that can be used to fill in details. See for example Miami Herald Mar 2, 1973; Palm Peach Post, Nov 1973; Miami Herald Oct 31, 1973; Ft. Lauderdale News, Oct 31, 1973; Miami Herald Mar 2, 1973 and scores of others.

  • Villa was released to Panama in Mar 73.
  • Miami Herald Mar 2, 1973 discusses the timing of Villa's release (and answers my query to what Castro got out of this, even if that speculation cannot be included in article)
  • We don't mention that Villa had 14 bullets in his back, one still lodged in his spine when released
  • Cuba released the ships to Panama on the condition they not be returned to the US
  • Palm Beach Post mentions crew imprisonments, and that one might have died in custody
  • Miami Herald Oct 31 1973 says Villa was found guilty of "exposing Panama to reprisals from Govt of Cuba" ... not any of the Cuban charges.
  • Ft Lauderdale News Oct 31, 1973 says he was sentenced in Panama to 16 months, but released immediately for time already served in Cuba and Panamanian jails. Our article is quite inaccurate and incomplete on any of this. Also says the ships were owned by only two of the brothers.

This is scratching the surface; to write this accurately, comprehensively and neutrally, a good deal of time in a library will help. I have also further researched Dinges. I now understand the mention of "trendy journalists who want to blame Noriega on the US"; Dinges seems to be stuck in Chile in the 70s, and viewing all of Latin America through those lenses. When using his POV version of history, careful balancing research is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am unable and unwilling to go to a library during the pandemic. I can and will ask for most of these sources on WP:RX, as they appear to be available on newspapers.com. I am not willing to use most of the transcripted radio broadcasts as a source, because I do not see how they are reliable, nor do I see how interviews given on Panamanian radio are reliable. They may make a useful external link, and could perhaps be used for absolute bare-bones details, like the names of the commission members. Some of the other statements above I cannot address unless I know which source they originate from. I disagree that Dinges's history is in any way more POV than any of the other sources brought up here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you may note where I mentioned it, I am not insisting that we use the radio broadcast transcripts (I questioned that myself), but they do answer some basic questions and give us some guidance, and I do agree they can be used for some bare bones understanding and to help us make sure we don't make other mistakes. If you have processed through everything else (let me know?), I will sit down for a new runthrough to see what I can strike. I can probably do that tomorrow, when I can fully focus to avoid the "searching sources from the car" scenario that happened at MAN:). I just got a subscription to newspapers.com; what do you need (titles? ... am I able to forward those to you myself ? Haven't checked, not fully familiar with newspapers.com myself just yet ... ) Re Dinges, many sources are POV (we don't expect them not to be), but we have to read lots of sources and reviews to make sure we know what the POV is and that we don't inadvertently give undue weight to any one POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've worked through things besides anything to do with the newspaper sources or the broadcasts; I would prefer to wait to use the broadcasts until I've seen the newspaper sources. So I guess what I need is a clipping of any newspaper source you would like me to use; I've asked an editor who has newspapers.com access for assistance, but if you'd rather find them yourself, I wouldn't object. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome, I see she is more conversant with newspapers.com than I am. I have now seen about four different descriptions of the size of the ships, so think we can stop trying to sort that and just leave it out—too much disagreement in sources. The US Coast Guard Marine Information Exchange seems to have no record of these ships. Shall I hold off for you to process through everything, and me to get Dinges? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, it seems to me that Vanamonde and Sandy are working together effectively to improve the article but the nom has become more akin to a PR. Could we pls continue this outside FAC and return when the collaboration is complete, or after two weeks, whichever is longer? A dedicated PR might even be in order before the next nom here, something to consider anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message to coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: SG has provided an extensive review above. I have engaged with what I believe to be the actionable substance of this review as it stood 72 hours ago. However, much of SG's commentary amounts to, in my opinion, a hostility to using one particular source, Our Man in Panama (1990), by John Dinges. Despite it a priori meeting the criteria for a reliable source, SG has essentially argued that the book isn't one, though she seems willing to accept details from obscure local Florida newspapers as statements of fact. Furthermore, SG has also asked me to either use an a priori unreliable source (printed transcripts of Panamanian radio broadcasts) or to write to the author of a relatively obscure source from 1973. I believe that I am being held to an unreasonable standard, one that the majority of FAs are never held to. This is exemplified by SG's objection to describing Herbert Parmet, a professor of history, as a historian. Would you be willing to look at these major points of disagreement? If you believe an oppose on those grounds is reasonable, I have no wish to spend weeks with newspaper clippings (as an aside; a good deal of time in a library, when I work 60+ hours a week and we're in a global pandemic? Is anyone unable to do that forbidden from nominating at FAC?), because the standard I have been set with respect to everything else is completely unattainable. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: We (coords) are not going to take a position on content questions without recusing. What we will do, however, is make a call on whether actionable opposition can or should be worked on during the course of the nomination or if it's best archived. Any opposition that raises rational questions about how the article meets WP:WIAFA is open to debate about whether and how it should be actioned. That's a matter for consensus among the nominator and various participants in the review. I'm not trying to give you a politician's answer to your query, just trying to be straightforward about the coord role here. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I understand that; I am asking you whether the points I mention in my ping to you constitute genuinely actionable opposition. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I operate on the assumption that feedback should be addressed, even if to state your reasons why you aren't making changes in response to that feedback. Nominators have never been required to do what reviewers ask, only to address feedback with actions or responses unless the feedback is clearly misguided, which certainly isn't the case here. That's my definition of actionable. Coordinators aren't here to sit in judgment of whether feedback items should be integrated into the article. That's a matter of consensus among you and the other participants in the review. --Laser brain (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Thank you, that is reasonable. Can I assume that means you are not going to be archiving this immediately? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, it's odd to object to using the considerable coverage in the Miami Herald for other facts, when the article now cites it 13 times and did use it to spread a rumor about one of the brothers. I also refute your characterization of my stance on Dinges, but we've been over that already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not objected to the Miami Herald, and your claim that I am is another indication that you're not really treating my arguments in good faith. My objection is to treating their content as established fact rather than source material requiring attribution, and to using papers even more local than the Herald for claims that contradict higher quality sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you five samples only above, and three of the five were from the Miami Herald, which you have already used extensively, so I am not following your concern about expanding your examination of newspaper sources. There are considerable more to be found by visiting a library.
The ship's owners, and its captain, were all from Florida, so it is not surprising that Florida papers covered it.
We don't have "higher quality sources [to contradict]" in this case; the article is based on snippets from here and there, with no major work devoted to this incident, except a legal analysis of maritime law (Gehring)-- the ONLY source used that is devoted to this incident, and which only looks at the maritime and other law involved. The other major source used is a legal analysis of another case (Behuniak), which mentions this case in passing. We have bits and pieces from other books, none of which look at this incident in depth. In other words, it is not surprising that you have had to use newspapers (which you have done extensively) and that you will need to then use more of them to balance and complete the story. By not doing so, the article actually had errors, and was not scratching the surface of comprehensive. I don't think you can opine on the newspapers sources untapped until the research is done-- it took me about an hour to find the amount of information I found above.
I am sympathetic to your concern about the hours of research it takes to write an FA; I have an entire credenza of lengthy, complex, technical journal papers which I have consulted to work on medical FAs. In addition to a considerable selection of scholarly textbooks, that are also lengthy and complex reading. That's the nature of the beast.
More significantly, I am keen to get hold of Dinges so I can verify the info from the pages used. The citation at both this article and Manuel Noriega is incorrect. There are two versions of Dinges. The ISBN in the citation points to the 1991 paperback, but the citation date is given as the 1990 version, which is a hardback. Could you please correct the citation and let me know which version to order? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“This is exemplified by SG's objection to describing Herbert Parmet, a professor of history, as a historian.” That was not my position; please re-read more carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leyla_Express_and_Johnny_Express_incidents/archive1&oldid=984233011"