Jump to content

Talk:Suitcase scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Maletinazo)

Antonini

[edit]

Antonini is the last name, Wilson is the second last name, customary of latin American naming.--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So should the article use 'Antonini-Wilson'? Most sources I've seen just use 'Wilson' Questioning81 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Antonini-Wilson is better. Wilson is the mother's maiden name. --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 23:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

great job, that's a good start!--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced info

[edit]

The names of nestor kirchner and his wife were removed, maybe add them back to the article since there are numerous sources involving them in the scandal!!? --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about first opining on the merge, so we can get this text together in one place first? And whenever making allegations about living persons, a cite must be provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of Carabobo sentence removed

[edit]

I removed the following text:

  • The governor of Carabobo started a campaign accusing the media of promoting "terrorism" by talking about "scandals". Around the country, placards were swiftly produced to declare scandals from the media to be terrorist acts.[citation needed]

JRSP questioned its relevance in his edit summary; I've searched the internet for a source, and can't find one. Apparently it was originally sourced to some Carabobo newspaper, but it wasn't sourced correctly and I can't locate a reference. It also doesn't seem highly relevant to the story, but perhaps if a source can be located, relevance can be established. The original author of most of this material needs to get busy sourcing all of it; almost everything else can be sourced to the various news reports still listed in External links, but this work needs to be done. The more time that goes by, the harder it will be to add the inline citations after the fact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Governor means media scandals in general, not specifically el maletinazo.[1] But he can be as noisy as the media he criticizes :-) I don't think his opinions are relevant to the article. JRSP 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, still seems only marginally related to me; I think we need a much stronger connection and relevance established before adding this back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new section?

[edit]

Involvement of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner

[edit]

On Wednesday December 13, 2007 the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) arrested three Venezuelans and one Uruguayan accusing them of being agents of the Venezuelan government who intended to look for Antonini to help cover up the scandal of the money that was intended for "a candidate" in the Argentine presidential elections of 2007.[2] The men arrested in Miami were charged with acting as agents of Venezuela's government and failing to register themselves as such.[3]

The Attorney general in charge of the case Thomas Mulvihill said that one of the arrested individuals, named Franklin Durán had declared that the money was for the then presidential candidate Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.[4] The Ambassador of the United States to Argentina Earl Antonhy Wayne assured that this had nothing to do with the Argentina-United States relations.[5]

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner responded to the investigation led by the United States dubbing it "operación basura" (Operation garbage).[6]

--Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FBI?

[edit]

On reading through the article I don't quite understand why the US FBI would be involved in something which seems to be an issue between Venezuela and Argentina. How do they come into all this?

83.241.192.2 (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonini Wilson background

[edit]

Please remove or allow me to remove the following text:
"Wladimir Abad is the secretary of American Food Grain (AFG), a part of a Venezuelan holding called Proarepa, owned by Sarkis Arslanian Beyloune and Ricardo Fernández Barrueco. Proarepa was in charge of the food distribution during Venezuela's oil strike of 2002, when Chávez signed contracts for food distribution. According to the Venezuelan Government Press Office, Proarepa is a private company that has "joined this mission (Mission Mercal) to offer food and better price to the Venezuelan consumer"." “In May of 2007, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) confiscated a jet belonging to American Food Grain. The report, according to The Miami Herald, says Ricardo Fernández Barruecos had not respected federal norms to register the plane in the United States."

This article is about "Maletinazo" and it is in no way related to :
List A
• Vladimir Abad
• American Food Grain
• Proarepa
• Sarkis Arslanian Beyloune
• Ricardo Fernández Barrueco
There is no connection between any of the companies or people mentioned above and the subject of the article. They are not even tangentially connected with Mr. Antonini. He bought an apartment in partnership with Wladimir Abad, that does not link Mr Wilson in any way with any of the companies or persons on the list. There is no reason for mentioning the company where Mr. Abad works. Furthermore, there is no reason to mention that such company had a plane confiscated by the DEA. This is clearly an attempt to discredit the persons and companies in List A by mentioning them in an international scandal with which they were in no way connected, even more disconcerting is to mention them in same context with the word D.E.A.
Not one of the persons or companies mentioned in List A were ever linked to the Maletinazo, the plane was not confiscated but “temporarily detained” over an issue with paperwork, the company paid a fine and the plane was released.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessio.aguirre (talk • contribs) 15:35, July 31, 2008

You can sign your entries by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your comments. Multiple reliable sources (I believe there are seven) do make a connection between all of these parties. It is not up to Wiki to decide the truth; it is up to Wiki to report what reliable sources say. Whether there is an "attempt to discredit", as you claim, is not for us to decide. On the other hand, if you want the connections to be fleshed out more clearly, there is ample text in the sources to do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, thanks for your reply.
My appeal is not for "truthfulness", as the truth is obviously that the persons and companies in List A cannot (and should not) be linked to an international scandal because the person who caused it owns an apartment with one of the company´s many thousands employees.
My appeal was for "relevance", as the persons and companies in List A are not relevant to the article.
I understand that there may be any number newspaper or other media articles that make the same claim, after administrative or legal actions with them the articles were taken down, sometimes with a simple email, sometimes after a simple “Libel" and "Slander” lawsuit.
I am not proficient in Wikipedia´s guidelines or policies; I was hoping you could help me find a way to have this data removed.
Thank you. 200.41.24.83 (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, now we're getting into legal claims, which are a problem on Wiki (see WP:THREAT). Have you read the WP:COI page I linked to you at your talk page? Have you read Wiki policies on WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS? If Wikipedia was the party drawing all of these claims together from unrelated sources, that would be synthesis, original research. Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is reporting information that is reported together by at least seven reliable sources. I will need to bring your discussion of legal issues, and your possible COI, to admin attention. Since I'm going to be out for a few hours, I will do that later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy: thanks again for your time. If I made any legal claims (I do not see any) please feel free to remove them, I would do it myself but do not know what to edit. If you are referring to me telling you how the dead URLs stopped linking List A to unrelated persons or events, please feel free to remove that bit or let me know and I will remove it.
This is a bit disconcerting to me, new ground, I thank you for your patience, I am trying to understand Wikipedia´s policies but I am very pressed for time, and, it is all somewhat counterintuitive to me, I usually deal with news agencies or webmasters and need not worry about internal policies and other internal documents.
I will try to read the different documents for which you provided links, and try to come up with the right wording so this content is removed.
If there is anybody else with whom I should correspond, please let me know.
Alessio.aguirre (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing you need to remove, and I did not intend to say (nor do I believe I said) that you had made legal threats: I said we were "getting into legal claims". You state that you "usually deal with news agencies or webmasters", so naturally, I'm concerned about the potential COI if you are the same person here:
Profile: Alessio Aguirre
  • "Born in Argentina, grew up in Venezuela, now live in Miami. I work at Kroll (www.Kroll.com) as director of r Computer Foresnic Services for Latin America."
Considering the nature of Kroll.com's business, if you are the same Alessio Aguirre, and if you are here representing a client, I notice that 1) you don't seem concerned about leaving mention of Venuz Supply Inc., Intertel Telecom and Techmilk Inc. in the article, while 2) you have removed reliably sourced mentions of ProArepa and American Food Grain, who are 3) alleged by the sources to have certain connections to the administration or family of Hugo Chavez. That you would also have knowledge of and make mention that 4) "I understand that there may be any number newspaper or other media articles that make the same claim, after administrative or legal actions with them the articles were taken down, sometimes with a simple email, sometimes after a simple “Libel" and "Slander” lawsuit" means that there may be legal complications relating to editing of this article, so it will need to be brought to admin attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thread started at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sandy:
I just read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=229086285&oldid=229085974 and let me just begin by congratulating you, I only wish I was this level of efficiency and professionalism more often.
Please be kind enough to see my comments point by point:
1) you don't seem concerned about leaving mention of Venuz Supply Inc., Intertel Telecom and Techmilk Inc. in the article, while
Those companies are allegedly linked to Antonini Wilson, who is relevant on the article. The companies and persons on List A are not, they are not connected to Mr. Antonini Wilson and are unjustly mentioned in an article regarding an international scandal.
Point 2) you have removed reliably sourced mentions of ProArepa and American Food Grain, who are 3) alleged by the sources to have certain connections to the administration or family of Hugo Chavez
Please note that ProArepa is connected to the Chavez administration because it provides services to the government just as many companies do, in Venezuela and any other country. There is no link however between ProArepa and the Maletinzo, and that is the information I am trying to relay to you. American Food Grain is one of the many subsidiaries of ProArepa and one of it employees owned an apartment together with Mr. Wilson. This is no basis to link List A to the Maletinazo scandal.
4) "I understand that there may be any number newspaper or other media articles that make the same claim, after administrative or legal actions with them the articles were taken down, sometimes with a simple email, sometimes after a simple “Libel" and "Slander” lawsuit" means that there may be legal complications relating to editing of this article, so it will need to be brought to admin attention.
I am the person you suggest I am, though I am not contacting you on behalf of Kroll. I do contact webmasters and news agencies.
Since the beginning of my correspondence I have tried to make it a point to be clear on the fact that I am asking for this information to be removed because it is not relevant or related to the Wikipedia article. The persons and companies in List A are mentioned in an international scandal in which they had absolutely nothing to do, one of their many thousands of employees bought an apartment along with Mr. Wilson, this does not justify mentioning them or their executives in this article which would clearly stain the good name of anybody who is mentioned in it.
Regarding the text quoted on point 4, I understand your comment about a person being able to infer that legal action would result on the outcome of our correspondence, yet the spirit of my comment was different from that. When I mentioned that I was asking for the content to be removed because it was not relevant to the article and because the persons and companies on List A are not related to Mr. Wilson, you mentioned that it was properly cited from several valid sources. If the basis for it being posted here is “the sources”, I believe it is fitting for me to mention that the content is being removed from the sources as well (the attempt to associate Mr. Wilson to the persons and companies on List A), I also see relevant mentioning why and how the content is being removed, if I did not, my point would be invalid. The point is that is being removed because the Maletinazo and the persons and companies on List A are not related.
I read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=229086285&oldid=229085974 and just wanted to comment on your text:
"A new user, Alessio.aguirre (not a common Hispanic name) has been deleting text relating to reliably sourced mentions of the companies, ProArepa and American Food Grain. The reliable sources connect ProArepa to the Chavez administration and the Maletinazo players and scandal."
Allow me to copy the text from Point 4:
“Please note that ProArepa is connected to the Chavez administration because it provides services to the government just as many companies do, in Venezuela and any other country. There is no link however between ProArepa and the Maletinzo, and that is the information I am trying to relay to you. American Food Grain is one of the many subsidiaries of ProArepa and one of it employees owned an apartment together with Mr. Wilson. This is no basis to link List A to the Maletinazo scandal."
As I am new to Wikipedia and do not know how to quote.

I apologize for deleting the text twice, once without being logged in, as I had forgotten the password for my original account “Alessio Aguirre” and once more after submitting an request to Wikipedia explaining that I was "Alessio Aguirre" but forgot my password and no longer had the email address I used to create the account and therefore requested the creation of the account "alessio.aguirre" as not to appear to be wanting to aim for anonymity. My name is unusual, my first name is Italian and my last name is Vask.
I am not familiar with Wikipedia and it being “the encyclopedia anyone can edit” I edited it with no ill will and no intention of vandalism or malice. I thought my first edit was reversed for having been performed without being logged in, so I logged in and did the edit. After I noticed you reversed the edit, I started corresponding with you without attempting any new edits.

Thanks again for your time.
Alessio.aguirre (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no need to apologize, and I appreciate that you have divulged the COI, but the situation is now complex enough that outside, admin eyes are needed and I am reluctant to edit this part of the article without admin opinions. It is not Wikipedia that connects ProArepa to Maletinazo; it is multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored, the text is sourced, and it is not WP:SYNTHESIS, so deleting the text seems like censorship of reliably published sources. I hope independent admins will weigh in as a result of the ANI thread (one admin who speaks Spanish has now stated that the text represents the sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apreciate your time on this.
Some sources (fewer each day) link ProArepa to the Maletinazo because one of its employees (Proarepa has thousands) owns an apartment with Mr. Wilson. This is not enough to link ALL the companies (including its holding) and its executives in List A.
Thank you for your time and let us wait for the admin then.
Alessio.Aguirre 201.216.241.201 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture painted by the sources is not one of an "employee" relationship. And a $4 million dollar building is an understatement for an apartment. Just saying what the sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sandy: There is an allegation that the property (house or apartment) has an estimated value of around U$S 3 million. it is unclear (and irrelevant) what percentage of that property belongs to Mr. Abad. Maybe he is rich, maybe his spouse is rich, maybe he inherited the money perhaps he makes millions a year in a variety of jobs or just one. That does not constitute or suggest evidence of ProArepa (or any of the companies an persons mentioned in List A) being in any way related to Mr. Wilson or the Maletinazo.

Mr. Abad is not a shareholder of any of the companies mentioned in List A, he is not in the board of any of them either, therefore he is an employee.

In another turn of events (witch I imagine will alter this article greatly), Mir. Antonini has been found innocent in this case and it has been establish that the suitcase belonged to another individual, please see http://www.elnuevoherald.com/213/story/149488.html

Thanks again for your time.

Alessio.aguirre (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing. (How did you find elnuevoherald archives?) I did a search, and will put some more sources below for later updating the page; I stopped paying attention to this page and the story long ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a list of udpated, English-language sources below. The article needs updating, but I can't work on it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could sound smart by telling you I used some sophisticated technique, but I was just doing keyword searches on the text I wrote before posting, just to check my facts, and that came along, I used google.com

I forget which keywords I searched for that particular link, I did so many keyword searches I shall soon need a new hdd in my terminal just for my browser's history alone... :)

Have a good night and thanks again.
Alessio.aguirre (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

Sandy, hello and I hope to find you well. I have not seen any news regarding my request for delteion. Can you please let me know if you have reached a desicion?

thanks.

Alessio Aguirre
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sany, I hope you are doing well.

I was hoping you could please give me an update on this issue.

Thank you.

Alessio
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.241.201 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no answer at the discussion page, I think you can delete yourself, Alessio. JRSP (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that the article needs to be rewritten entirely, as it was thrown together by various editors when it was news, suffers from WP:RECENTISM, and we've now got many new sources. On the issue of deleting the text, in spite of my post to a broad audience at WP:AN/I, and several editors looking in here, no editor found a reason to delete that text, and several supported it. Could it be written better? Yes. Is there a policy reason to delete it? Apparently not. I've delayed in re-writing the article because, considering how it was thrown together initially, I'm not relishing the thought of re-writing it top to bottom, but that's a separate matter from deleting reliably-sourced notable text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the text is reliably-sourced and notable but, according to Alessio, not factual then he should ask the original source(s) to set things right or perhaps provide other reliable sources contradicting the first sources information. JRSP (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could be confused (Alessio's posts tend to be long :-), but I'm not gathering that he's saying the information is not factual, rather he's calling the connections weak, basically something like synthesis, which is where his argument runs afoul of Wiki policy. Wiki isn't making the connections (that would be synthesis and original research); Wiki reports what reliable sources say. Reliable sources make these connections. If Alessio has reliable sources that deny these sources, then we can balance the article with those. If I'm understanding Alessio's position correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links appear on El Universal, El Clarín, Miami Herald and La Nación. I agree editors are basically reporting what those sources say so I think Alessio should talk with these papers to settle these issues. JRSP (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time guys. I'll try to make this post short, and use colloquial language to see if I can get my point across.
Antonini was invited to fly down to Argentina with some people (friends, associates, who knows) and they asked him to carry a briefcase. The briefcase was full of money. He got arrested. He was taken to the US. He declared the briefcase was not his. The court established it was not his, it belonged to someone else and they press charges against that other person and freed Antonini and cleared him of all charges. A reporter did an asset search on Antonini and realize he owns an piece of property in Florida. Abad owns part of it too. Abad works at a ProArepa, American Food Grain owns ProArepa.One newspaper creates a false link between ALL the partners and executives of all of American Food Grain's companies and an international scandal with which they had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do (they are not related to anybody who was on the plane, they have no operations in Argentina, Antonini is not related to them, they have nothing to do with the plane, with the person who was actually charged with the crime, no link what so ever with anything or anybody) and now newspapers and, well, Wikipedia, out of all places are linking (citing other sources) American Food Grain with an international scandal which as you can imagine, greatly damages the reputation of the companies, their representatives (their families) and with no reason other than the guy who got invited to fly down owns a piece of property along with of of the many employees of one of their many companies.
I have communicated with many of the newspapers and the articles have been taken down. I have also communicated with many online news portals and they took down the information as well. It is much easier to deal with them since Venezuela's constitution, in Article 60 guaranties the right to keep one´s name and honor, so one cannot claim links or mention people in scandals with which they are not related. The issue with Wikipedia is that all information that has a valid source gets published, so, here I am, trying to get this information taken away on the basis of relevancy, since mentioning AFG and its executives is evidently of no relevance to the article, since nobody mentions that there is a link, merely that Antonini owns a piece of property with Abad and that Abad works at AFT. To me, this is irrelevant. Even more, to mention that AFG had a plane confiscated by the DEA in this article is just, outrageous, not because it is not true, but because it depicts a picture that just isn't true, even if the individual events are.
The DEA, as we all know, is in charge of going after drug smugglers. But, they also do other stuff, like looking at the papers of the airplanes that land in the US. AFG landed a plane and there was a problem with the paperwork, nothing to do with drugs or money of briefcases. The plane was temporarily retained, and fine was paid, and eventually they sold it. End of story. Nothing to do with Antonini of the scandal.
"Antonini was arrested for trying to illegally enter hundreds of thousands of dollars to Argentina. Antonini owns a piece of property with Abad, who works and ProArepa, owned by AFG. AFG had a plane impounded by the DEA." All this information is true, but, again, not related, and it creates a false picture, linking AFG to the DEA to illegal international money trafficking.
So it was not a short post :) sorry, but, it is complicated stuff.
I am going to end up screaming "they are not related" on my sleep :)
Many of the cited sources no longer publish the articles referenced on the Wikipedia article, I guess I will keep on contacting the rest of them, and keep on communicating with you guys.
They are not related! :=)
Thanks
Alessio.aguirre (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a long post. Summarizing the issues:
  • Some of what you write amounts to your own original research, opinion, synthesis unless you have a source to back it up, so isn't usable for Wiki purposes.
  • The last time I checked, all of the sources used in the article were still available; is that no longer true?
  • The bigger issue is that I need to carve out time to completely rewrite this article, top to bottom. In that rewrite, I may be able to address some of your concerns (the current article structure highlights this info in a separate section, and this article structure is not ideal in light of recent sources ... it was all written as the story was unfolding, in a classic case of WP:RECENTISM).
So, again, unless you have reliable sources that disclaim the story as printed by other reliable sources, the best we can do for now is improve and restructure the article. I haven't decided whether it's better to work on it piecemeal, or to sit down and rewrite the entire article offline and replace it in one edit. I normally prefer to work in small chunks, so others can see where I'm going step-by-step, but this article needs so much work that it may be better to rewrite the whole thing in one step. Would like to hear JRSP's opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that my comments contain original research or opinions. AFG and ProArepa are in no way connected to Antonini or this scandal. There is no reason to mention them, there is even less reason to mention the owners of the companies. The sources I have to back up my comments are the articles cited in this page, in which they talk about Antonini, Abad, ProArepa, AFG and its owners, the DEA and the plane without there being any connection. The only end served by mentioning them all is to damage their reputation, as this information adds nothing to the article, since it is not related.
Source 23 was taken down.The rest will be down shortly, some procedures take time
BR, Alessio.aguirre (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a general note, saying "Source 23 was taken down" will result in future talk page confusion; Wiki articles are dynamic, and what is now "source 23" can change at any minute. Do you mean that the El Nuevo Herald story was taken offline? Since they don't maintain full archives (and neither does The Miami Herald, but the article is perfectly accessible in a library), unless you have a reliable source saying the story was retracted, again, this is your original research. Do you have a retraction or disclaimer printed by one of these papers? That would certainly substantiate your input. Otherwise, you are asking us to "take your word for it" over published, reliable sources. That isn't they way Wiki works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, you could provide us with statements of the persons and/or companies clarifying their position. The best scenario would be to have these statements on the same papers that published the original articles; second best scenario would be to have those statement published by other reputable media. A last resort would be working with verifiable primary sources; like the companies' websites. In any case, Alessio, we cannot work with only what you say at the talk page, we need verifiable material. JRSP (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JRSP, I hope all is well.
I could contact the newspapers and ask them for a letter. What would you have them say? that they mention AFG mearly for background information? that there is no connection between Antonini and AFG? I could not do that, since they never alledge they are linked, they mearly mention them. There could be no retraction, they say nothing of the matter other than state true information in a misleading way.
Therefore, my final question is, what do you suggest I ask the editor to say in his letter?
BR,
Alessio Aguirre

I can't tell you what I would ask, I just don't know. But I can tell you what we as WP editors can do with the replies. Depending of what you get, we can consider a deletion or we could add text balancing what we have now in the article; it all depends on what the new material says. Please don't forget to provide us the url or the reference to printed material. JRSP (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is pretty clear on published sources; you can ask the papers to publish a retraction, but I don't think a letter to an individual means anything. You can certainly contact the Foundation and ask them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add link to archived ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it has to be published material. I understood Alessio was talking about a published letter. We can also discuss the relevance of the information: we have an article about el maletinazo, Antonini is clearly related to he case; on the other hand, he is related to several individual and corporations but these are not (necessarily) related to el maletinazo so we might have a case of "guilt by association" here. The tricky part is that the association is not made by editors but by the sources (otherwise the information would have been removed immediately per WP:BLP and WP:NOR). Anyway, I am not very sure if these connections bring interesting encyclopedic information to the article. I noticed Sandy didn't get much response at AN/I, perhaps we should try a request for comments to get more editors input. JRSP (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I just would not know what to ask for, a published letter of course, but saying what?, I cannot imagine. My predicament here is that they do not mention a link anywhere, they just publish factual data that is not relevant to the article, as I said before, each individual piece of information is true, just not relevant in the context in which they mention it, and no editor would publish a letter explaining that "they did not mean anything by it". It is a hard position to be in.
Alessio.aguirre (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JRSP: I hope it is OK for me to interrupt here, I know little of WP etiquette, I just wanted to say here, that you mentioned "Antonini is clearly related to he case; on the other hand, he is related to several individual and corporations but these are not (necessarily) related to el maletinazo"
And my comment is that he IS related to other individuals (Abad) but, he IS NOT related to the companies in list A, as you can read from the sources, Antonini owns a piece of property with Abad, that is it, there is no Link between Antonini and AFG or ProArepe nor their shareholders or its executives. Alessio.aguirre (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alessio, the best place to start is with a solid understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No Original Research. As a side note, you don't have to keep adding HTML breaks to your text: have a look at WP:TALK and WP:TP for how to thread responses. If you keep your posts succinct, you'll have better luck when other editors come to read the Request for Comment. If you think a letter from one of the newspapers to the Foundation will help, I linked the address above, but a paper either stands by its reporting, or retracts it in print, and it we have no indication that the story has been retracted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was other input. Jossi also responded on talk, and JoshuaZ came through here after the AN/I. The silence says a lot (there were no perceived problems with the text). And I suspect an RfC will do no better than the AN/I in terms of generating feedback because of the noticeable Northern hemisphere summer break slowdown in editing. I know someone who can rewrite this article in a second, but is traveling now, and I wouldn't approach him until about three more weeks. Lots of editors are traveling or on break now (it's August). But Alessio seems to be in a hurry. That's too bad, because my preference would be wait until mid-Sept and get more help and feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think silence is because of "no perceived problems with the text" (actually you have admitted the text needs to be rewritten), just lack of interest as the scandal seems to have gone out of fashion. I don't think wikipedia is on summer break Sandy, so I think WP:RfC is the best alternative. JRSP (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's seriously on break; all content review processes are slowed down, and lots of regular editors mentioning travel, and the single editor who could be most helpful here (Jbmurray (talk · contribs)) traveling with limited access most of the summer. And made harder in this case, because only editors who read Spanish will pitch in (which is why I approached Jossi (talk · contribs) on talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 2

[edit]

Hello guys. I am not in a hurry per say, my concern is that, until very recently, there has been no hint of the text being edited, only talks about it being re-written some time int he future, in the mean time, AFG, Proarepa and the Beyloune and Barrueco family are mentioned the biggest encyclopedia on planet hearth in a huge scandal, without them having had had anything to do with it. Just imagine. All news reports agree on where the money came from, who carried it, for whom he was carrying it, who was charged with the crime and who the money was for. None of those persons have anything to do with the companies and persons on list A. Of course the following suggestion is tainted with my stance on this matter, but, perhaps, until the article is re-written, the text in bold could be suppressed, at least temporarily:

"According to El Nuevo Herald and El Universal, Antonini Wilson owns a condo in Ocean Club, Key Biscayne, Florida; together with Wladimir Abad, he is registered as owner of a building located in Mashta Avenue, in Key Biscayne, valued at $US3.96 million.[22] Wladimir Abad is the secretary of American Food Grain (AFG),[23] a part of a Venezuelan holding called Proarepa, owned by Sarkis Arslanian Beyloune and Ricardo Fernández Barrueco.[22][24] Proarepa was in charge of the food distribution during Venezuela's oil strike of 2002, when Chávez signed contracts for food distribution. According to the Venezuelan Government Press Office, Proarepa is a private company that has "joined this mission (Mission Mercal) to offer food and better price to the Venezuelan consumer".[22] According to El Nuevo Herald, Antonini Wilson's name is linked to other companies in southern Florida, such as Venuz Supply Inc., Intertel Telecom and Techmilk Inc.;[22][25][26] La Nación says that Antonini is among a group of businessmen who benefited economically during the administration of Hugo Chávez.[26] In May of 2007, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) confiscated a jet belonging to American Food Grain. The report, according to The Miami Herald, says Ricardo Fernández Barruecos had not respected federal norms to register the plane in the United States.[22][23][27]"
The mention of Antonini owning the condo with Abad will stay, since there is a link there.
What are your thoughts on that?
BR,
Alessio.aguirre (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you basically want Wikipedia to suppress a story that is reported by The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Clarín, La Nación, USA Today, and El Universal based on your word, for individuals who are possibly your business clients,[7][8] and without giving us any reliable source that retracts the story? I know very capable editors who are fluent in Spanish and who could help us re-write the article, but this is exactly why I hesitate to begin the work here. Your request is not founded in Wikipedia policies, rather some level of discomfort that Wikipedia is reporting a story about these people that has been reported in at least seven newspapers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request the information being removed because it is not relevant to the article. Perhaps someone could write an article about Abad and move the text to his article. Then mention that he was an employee of ProArepa (I can provide proof that he no longer works there) and link the word ProArepa to an article of ProArepa, and so on. I have always tried to focus my requests on what I consider right, ethical and true, and WP's guidelines (little knowledge I have of them), regardless of what my interests may be. I have never made a request that, to my point of view, is unethical or tries to deceive anybody, quite the contrary, I wholeheartedly believe that justice would be served if I achieve my goal. I am not asking that WP's readers be deprived of information, just that they do not arrive at a wrong conclusion after reading this article. I understand your concern about COI, and I think that it is just concern (not that WP needs my approval) but, again, I would see that as an issue if I were in any way trying to achieve a goal that would bring detriment to anybody, and I do not believe that is the case with my requests.
Perhaps, as I mentioned, the solution to this issue would be to create separate articles for Antoniti and ProArepa. Alessio.aguirre (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Sandy, it is a "six degrees of separation" thing: This article is about "El Maletinazo", Antonini is clearly related to the case. Now, Antonini may be related to other subjects. The question is: are the latter relevant to "El Maletinazo"? Even worse, we have that Antonini owns a condo together with Abad who is the secretary of AFG that is part of Proarepa which is owned by Beyloune and Barrueco. How many degrees of separation are there? Following this line, the whole world population would be involved in the scandal! JRSP (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Once again, I would like to get an update on my request. The persons and companies on list A are being linked to an international scandal because the person who registered one of their planes had an apartment with a guy who was declared inocent by the US goverment of any wrongdoing. This just cannot continue to be so without any change infinatelly. I have not received any answers on my last request. Thank you.

Alessio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.241.201 (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have not received an answer in weeks, if I delete the text, will someone revert my changes? Alessio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.24.83 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, am I to understand that the article is going to incriminate several inocent people, that the text will not be edited and that my requests are going to be ignored because editors are no "looking forward to re-write this article"?

Wikipedia is such a great site, but it never ceases to amaze me, how a group of poeple with such high moral standars and such precise desire to have cited sources for everithing can allow yourselfs to leave a clear "un truth" in an article for months.

Oh well, with the foundation it is then.

Thanks for your time.

Alessio Aguirre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.224.159.67 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for updating the page

[edit]
  • Barrionuevo, Alexei (2007-12-13). "U.S. Links Smuggled Cash to Venezuela". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  • "Venezuelan in cash seizure seen at Argentine palace". Los Angeles Times. 2007-12-21. p. A-13. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  • "Slush and garbage: The imbroglio over a cash-stuffed suitcase". The Economist. 2008-01-03. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  • (in Spanish) Ocando, Casto and Reyes, Gerardo (2008-01-26). "Antonini libre de culpa en el caso de la valija". El Nuevo Herald. Retrieved 2008-08-01. En un sorprendente giro en el caso de los supuestos agentes no autorizados del gobierno de Venezuela en Estados Unidos, la Fiscalía federal de Miami reveló ayer que la valija confiscada en un aeropuerto de Buenos Aires con $800,000 no pertenecía a Guido Alejandro Antonini, sino a otro pasajero del mismo vuelo privado. La revelación está contenida en un documento que anuncia la declaratoria de culpabilidad del abogado venezolano Moisés Maionica, uno de los cinco hombres acusados de actuar en nombre del gobierno sudamericano para presionar a Antonini a fin de ocultar el origen y el destino de la valija. ... Por primera vez la Fiscalía exculpó abiertamente a Antonini y lo liberó de responsabilidades en el polémico episodio de la valija.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Barrionuevo, Alexei (2008-03-04). "Venezuelan Pleads Guilty in Cash Delivery". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  • "Guilty plea in 'suitcase scandal'". BBC News. 2008-04-24. Retrieved 2008-08-01.

That's all for now (I find it strange that none of the English-language sources mention that Guido Antonini Wilson was exonerated, as the Spanish-language El Nuevo Herald does ... they imply it, but never say it, as far as I can tell). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody ever going to bother re-write this article taking out all the claims which are no longer valid?190.245.176.159 (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 September 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move unopposed (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maletinazo → Suitcase scandal – It is a name composed by words in English, and may be easier to understand for readers who do not know Spanish well. The word "Maletinazo" is not an actual word, it is basically "Maletín" (suitcase) with an "azo" suffix, which is usually used to name scandals. Cambalachero (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Cambalachero (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Suitcase scandal. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suitcase_scandal&oldid=1224132371"