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

Moved discussion

I try to review as many articles as I can that use (or should use) Spanish-language sources, but I haven't yet finished with the just archived Manuel Noriega; did you get leave from the coordinators to waive the two-week wait period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Oh, I do apologize; I've never been in a position to nominate immediately after an archival before, and always assumed it applied to articles, rather than nominators. I have untranscluded the nomination for the moment. @FAC coordinators: coordinators; Manuel Noriega was just archived, having attracted no commentary, and is now at peer review; this one has been waiting in the wings since it passed ACR; may I transclude the nomination again, or would you prefer I wait? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ‘bout that :(. The Coords often give leave to experienced nominators to go ahead and put up another ... do you have one waiting in the wings that doesn’t depend on Spanish-language sources, that I wouldn’t necessarily be reviewing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I don't really have another obvious ones waiting, the others that I can think of all need a quick sweep through the source material at the very least. Waiting isn't my favorite thing, but I'm the one who's out of order here, so I can't complain too loudly if I've got to wait a couple of weeks. I don't know that I qualify as experienced, with eleven FAs, but I'm not a complete newbie, I suppose...which makes me rather more embarassed I had this rule backwards. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am always sympathetic to the Coords giving leave to experienced nominators (I always did), even if that frustrates my intent to review Spanish language articles ... whatever they decide is good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, must be something in the water, exactly the same situation as here -- again, I'll go with whatever you feel is best...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind this nomination going forward. Thanks for checking with me. --Laser brain (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, although we may get a bit tangled in the back and forth, as a quick glance reveals it has some of the same issues I will reference in review of Manuel Noriega. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Laser Brain; in that case, I'd like it to go forward. I know it could get a little confusing, but getting reviews for political history topics always takes a while, so I might as well start my wait now. In the extremely unlikely event that it's ready for promotion before you, SandyGeorgia, have a chance to comment, I can ask the coords to hold it open for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting hold of Dinges

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)

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)

Vanamonde93 getting hold of the book is proving to be difficult per COVID issues. Whether I go for the hardback or the paperback, the new is more expensive than I want to pay, and the used will take at least a week to get. And every library I check is difficult because they aren't operating full staff and I have to call. I am at the cabin, where I have no phone dialout capacity, so I can't call the libraries until I am back on the road home. There remains a possibility I can stop by one library next week en route home. But if I have to wait that long, I may as well order a used copy and wait the week, knowing it will be delivered to me at home week after next. I don't want you to have to scan pages; while there aren't that many pages used in this article, I would still need the book for Manuel Noriega, where more pages are needed. So, I'm stalled ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the Dinges citations in this article are to three pages, 69-71, which I'm willing to scan (or at least to photograph). If you'd rather get the book, that's fine with me, I'm in no rush. If neither of those options is acceptable, I'm a little uncertain what you're asking for. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I am stalled for at least a week. I will email you, though, in case you want to send me the limited pages used in this article while I am stuck at the cabin without a library nearby. I can't promise that those few pages will help, though, having now read through so many reviews that explain the problems with Dinges ... I guess I will need to read them to see. But if I have only those pages, will I be missing chapter footnotes ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the notes are more pages, in a separate section...perhaps, if you're getting the book anyway, we can just wait. If you're not buying the book (and to be clear, I would not expect a reviewer to buy a source) I can look into photographing those too. Vanamonde (Talk)

Honestly, I would rather buy a used copy than expose myself during COVID escalation to what it may take me to find one in a library ... if you don't mind waiting, I will just order a used hardback now, trying to find the earliest delivery I can get ... perhaps I will have better luck with sources beyond amazon. On it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I ordered a used hardback, which says I will get earliest on Wednesday 21, latest Friday 23 ... even delivery is affected these days :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering notes from newspapers.com clippings

... so I don't lose my place again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms there was a three-man delegation, as mentioned in the radio broadcast transcripts. Says that Fidel released all but Cubans.
From this, since we are seeing tonnage all over the place (and it means nothing to laypeople, as it measures volume rather than weight), the 235-foot freighter might be a better description of the ship.
Here we get full name of José Villa Díaz. Royna and Explorer ??? And Villa was not accused of anything aboard the Johnny. Castro was "serving notice" on US by seizing these ships, rather than the one he alleged was involved in Oriente attacks. Warning from US State Dept to Cuban exiles. Calls Villa a "political hostage"
This discusses interrogation, freed on Dec 27.
This names other ships from company, discusses channels frequently used in cargo runs. Mentions Villa was only US citizen.
This is confusing. How did Castro get the ships back if they were sent to Panama? Were they sent to Panama? Reminder that Jose de la Torriente took credit for incursions, need to work that in (found in other sources).
This gives some description of attacking ship (there is more in other sources). Has Villa born in Cuba ... what to make of sources that say he was Spanish. Says he was transporting coffee, baseballs and household goods.
Here Cuban torpedo boat 020, shooting with heavy machine guns. Concern for proximity to Nixon because of past incidents.
Here attack included grenades. Navy denounced for failing to come to aid.
Titan and Castro claims. Released others, kept Cubans.
Here Betancourt gets one of the four released. Mentions growing affinity between Castro and Torrijos. Mentions as stated in earlier sources, meanwhile, that Castro was using the ships in Cuba.
Here we have two crew members still held, ships turned over to Panama. An agreement signed by Betancourt (obscured print?). Prisoner believed to have died in custody.
And, here we again have Villa as Spanish born ... sheesh already !!
Here ships turned over to Panama. Circuit court to decide on a case. Same.
I can't read this.
Two clips of part 1b, need to find part 1a, [1] But another still in jail, and another believed to have died. (Would love to see declassified info on that death.)
Associated Press, in Ft Lauderdale news
This same is found in other sources,[2] Villa denies charges, yada, yada
This is hard to read, and a duplicate of other sources, [3]
Torres still in prison here, do we know when/if he was ever released? [4]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no further information about what became of Jose Torres, last reported in Cuban prison in 1974. But while searching for "Johnny Express" sources, I found this, which seems to disclaim the notion that Noriega was the key to the Torrijos-Castro budding friendship: [5] Has Bethancourt as key and relationship warming up before Noriega's involvement. Shows up on search because of a different Jose Torres. This translation may help a bit, if you overlook translation errors and the "revolutionary" POV. To be used, I would have to do a more careful translation ... but it provides an alternate to the Dignes POV that has Noriega as the center of the universe controlled by the Evil Empire to the North. (Search the document for "Express" and then start reading several paragraphs ahead of that.) It provides a take on Panamanian-Cuban relations a bit beyond Dignes's narrow view of LatinAmericans as nothing more than US puppets. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verne Lyon

This does not need to be mentioned in Talk:Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents since you already mentioned here, but I think that it was a good call to scrap Verne Lyon's book. SandyGeorgia's statement (i.e. "Verne Lyon was discredited and imprisoned; he had an anti-CIA motive.") summarizes it nicely. Lyon's claim that he worked for the CIA, was framed by the CIA, and has inside information about this topic fall under WP:REDFLAG. He has credibility issues[6][7], plus the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Lyon's found that he never worked for the CIA.[8] -Location (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]