Talk:Alejandro Betancourt López

use of nonRS and puff pieces
. I've also added the very current news items about the bribery scandal allegations. Someone needs to add more RS's to round out this article. I still don't know if this guy is notable (beyond the bribery allegations) enough for his own BLP.27.122.12.72 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point but I can not agree on the dubious origin of the sources, s needed to read the information, so it is not verifiable that it talks about the subject of this page. Talking this into account I proceed to delete his changes. --Tony3485 (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but just because some sources are paywalled doesn't necessarily mean that all the text in question can be deleted (as far as my understanding of this). Some basic text is visible and removing it removes all references to the legal issues facing Betancourt and Derwick. Quis separabit?  16:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Quis separabit? 16:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have checked all the relinks and just one (from the Wall Street Journal), which was cited twice, is paywalled. The others are all open; one in Spanish. So I am restoring the text in question. Yours, Quis separabit?  16:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in editing this page. Although we consider valid the fact that your references are paywall and only those people with a subscription are able to validate what you say, we may not forget that naming a paragraph under bribery is kind of defamatory for this individual. I have been checking references and for instance the accusations have been denied http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2014/03/29/1713389/banesco-desmiente-el-pago-de-50.html In Wikipedia none of us is a judge so we should not accurate anybody. According to this I proceed to eliminate the defamatory accusations.--Tony3485 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism and non neutral point of view (Against wikipedia policies)

The newspaper articles and allegations of wrong doing by individuals should not belong in the top page. Please refer to wikipedia policy regarding living persons. Please refer to wikipedia editor editions in Derwick Associates wikipedia page. I am just making conforming changes to this page. It seems to me that this page is subject to same non neutral editions made in the wikipedia page of Derwick.

12:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)The power of jimmy (talk)


 * Although we consider valid the fact that your references are paywall and only those people with a subscription are able to validate what you say, we may not forget that naming a paragraph under bribery is kind of defamatory for this individual.
 * I don't understand what the above means at all. But filing a lawsuit is not simply making an allegation and the filing of a lawsuit most certainly can be reported on Wikipedia in the same way that references to lawsuits can be referenced in newspapers, websites, etc, even if the lawsuit is not yet adjudicated, provided the source is reliable and the status of the situation is clear. In the U.S. everyone is innocent until proven guilty and that is reflected in the Betancourt article which is not baised. Quis separabit?  22:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Linked in and personal websites are not sources for Wikipedia
There is so much puffery going on in this article. I cannot find anywhere in the noticeboards as RS. Consequently, I'm going to salvage what remains in the piece that has RS's and I'm removing original research, linked-in, and the BLP taken from the subject's own website. I'm also listing the Venezuelan state-owned newspaper used as a source rather than just removing it. I can't find it on the noticeboard.15cpw (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the Linked-In material and some of the original research, I'm hoping the public relations team at Derwick Associates doesn't, once again, restore the blatant puffery for which there is no RS. 27.122.12.78 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, and I found a blog that contradicts the contentions found in the puffery. To boot: http://infodio.com/180314/who/is/alejandro/betancourt

The analysis above is not from an RS but its claims are as valid as a linked-in or personal website by the subject of the BLP 27.122.12.78 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Good faith Ccomment to any editor stopping by
This article, about the CEO of a Venezuelan/Panamanian/Barbados/US company by the name Derwick Associates was created by a user who I suspect has been retained for PR purposes (Majogomezsz). The original version didn't contain a single RS and was all puffery and immediately nominated for deletion. The folks I suspect are PR mavens fought to keep the page. Then, individuals adding RS material kept getting reverted because these were seen as "attacks" and "defamation." Newsworthy current affairs matters in major mainstream press is relevant for a BLP. Extra care needs to be taken to ensure balance, neutrality, and fairness. However, just because a news article contains severe and grave material doesn't mean it cannot be included.

The fact of the matter is that a former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela and senior State Dept. official sued Mr. Betancourt in a NY Federal Court accusing them of paying bribes in Venezuela and engaging in all sorts of criminal activity including surveillance of journalists, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and he filed the case under the RICO statute, which is what prosecutors use when dealing with a "criminal enterprise" (usually the mob).

One month after this BLP was created (if my nexis chronology isn't missing anything) another lawsuit was filed, this time by a human rights lawyer in New York (who apparently is also a columnist for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and other sources used as RS on wikipedia). That particular lawsuit accuses Betancourt, his company, and his partners of engaging in bribery in Venezuela at the highest level as well as maliciously defaming journalists engaged in investigative reporting about their alleged crimes. That lawsuit was filed in Florida State court. Anyone who has access to nexis or who can search for the information about Betancourt, his company and their legal troubles will find that it has been reported extensively in Spain, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, the U.S., and so on in RSs and in dozens of blogs and nonRS media to list.

In a fascinating (for me) turn, Reporters Without Borders, a highly reputable NGO based in Paris has published research indicating that Betancourt and his company Derwick (or someone who sympathizes with them) has successfully banned certain websites that talk about the allegations against them--on ALL cable and ISP companies inside Venezuela.

I also note, for the benefit of anyone actually searching about Mr. Betancourt either by his full name (Leopoldo Alejandro Betancourt Lopez, or by the name he apparently uses, Alejandro Betancourt Lopez), that there appears to be a deliberat effort to protect him and his company, Derwick from anyone seeking information about them via google... someone has engaged in an ungodly amount of "astroturfing" on behalf of Betancourt by creating multiple accounts for him and his company on heavily trafficked platforms including: Twitter, Spotify, Myspace, Facebook, TwitPic, Reverbnation, Slideshare, PRweb, Newsvine, Jigsy, and lots of blogspot. They've even got a bizarre page on change.org with two bogus "petitions"

None of these pages appear to be used for corporate purposes and the entries (if any) are from months or years ago and appear to be SEO work. It's filler to clog up my google search engine so that any actual news coverage from reliable sources like the Dow Jones Newswire, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, or even the Miami Herald do not show up in a search engine. See for yourself:

http://alejandrobetancourtlopez.blogspot.com/ https://myspace.com/leopoldobetancourtlopez http://www.purevolume.com/leopoldoalejandrobetancourtlopez/ http://leopoldoalejandrobetancourtlopez.wallinside.com/ http://leopoldobetancourtlopez.newsvine.com http://www.slideshare.net/derwickassociates https://twitter.com/derwickcorp http://derwick-associates.blogspot.com/ http://cvhatmasr.com/job/17483/leopoldo-alejandro-betancourt-lopez-at-leopoldo-alejandro-betancourt-lopez/ http://www.dingjiasiwang.com/how-does-leopoldo-alejandro-betancourt-lopez-wind-energy-perform/ http://jastag.com/index.php?do=/blog/tag/leopoldo-alejandro-betancourt-l-243pez/ http://derwickassociates.jigsy.com/ http://derwick.newsvine.com/ http://www.reverbnation.com/derwickassociates http://derwickassociate hubpages com/ https://www.change.org/organizations/derwick_associates

There is obviously nothing illegal about creating the internet equivalent of "white noise" or astroturfing but it can lead someone like me to be extraordinarily skeptical, especially when I read from an RS that Mr. Betancourt's company has persecuted journalists and had them offered bribes and when that didn't work, had the journalists harassed by the Venezuelan secret police: Here's one NGO http://ipys.org.ve/alerta/autor-de-investigaciones-periodisticas-sobre-sector-electrico-es-citado-por-presunto-funcionario-de-policia-de-inteligencia-e-intimidado-por-empresa-contratista-2/

And here's a reporter for Monocle on the same subject:

http://settysoutham.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/venezuelan-intelligence-defends-derwick-associates-from-the-deadly-peril-of-journalism/

Consequently, those I suspect are working at a PR company (users Tony3485 and Majogomezsz) be on polite notice: you will be treated fairly here, you will be interacted with on good faith, you will be addressed with civility, but you will not be allowed (by me, at least, when I can get time off work) to do here, in an encyclopedia, what you or someone with the same objectives have been able to accomplish elsewhere on the internet. Obviously, the two single-purpose users that have been reverting my edits (and others they bring in) are going to continue. However, I ask anyone visiting or concerned about edit-warring, or balance, or NPOV that take these discussions with a very large grain of salt given the voluminous information that exists, the bad faith of Mr. Betancourt with regard to covering up negative information rather than responding to it, the Reporters Without Borders involvement (https://wefightcensorship.org/censored/corruption-limits-venezuelan-internethtml.html), and the persecution of legitimate, independent, Award-winning journalists who have dared to write about what they believe are the illegal actions of this company and its principals. The two lawsuits against him are surely going to continue to get some coverage in RS media in the U.S. and I will update the information accordingly--including the responses and denials by the company and its executives.

Thank you for your patience and happy administrating/or editing   27.122.12.78 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I want to give some rational to my edit. This person has 2 defamation lawsuits introduced by 2 civil persons. These lawsuits should not be in the top page of the biography of the living person. 2 defamation lawsuits do not mark the biography of a person, especially if those lawsuits come from other individuals are not supported by facts. Please refer to the Wikipedia principle presumed innocent until proven guilty. For this reason, I am eliminating these lawsuits of the top page.

The section Present, relates to the same 2 allegations above noted and the same principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty should apply. 16:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Eleonora Venezuela (talk)

I suggest a few changes to this article. a.    First to add a new section: Business career, here is my suggestion, with verifiable facts: After obtaining a double major in Economics and Business Administration from Suffolk University in Massachusetts, 2004, Alejandro began his career in the energy industry in Venezuela. In 2007, Betancourt founded Derwick Associates, a venezuelan company that specializes in Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC ) of thermoelectric plants. Since 2010, Derwick has built the infrastructure for eleven simple cycle power plants, and has contributed to “El blindaje electrico de Caracas” Caracas’ electrical shield. In 2010, Betancourt also founded the turbine technology center (CTT) located in Guacara, Carabobo. The center will provide repair and maintenance services for industrial, air derivative and steam units, as well as services for associated components thereby supporting the Electrical Generation and Oil Industry in Venezuela. In 2011, Betancourt founded Fundación Hermógenes López, today known as Derwick Fundación, a non profit organization for education and construction of infrastructure for education and sports. Fundación Hermógenes López built a school named “Escuela Carmen Salles” in Cuidad Bolívar, Venezuela that benefits 400 children. Derwick Fundación and Funindes-USB are offering specialization courses for operation and maintenance of thermoelectric plants, at Universidad Simón Bolivar, Caracas. b.    To delete this paragraph: In October 2013, Spanish newspaper ABC published on its news pages about how Alejandro Betancourt López, whom it nicknames a "bolichico" stands accused of "influence trafficking" and "bribery payments", and that Derwick Associates was being sued alongside López for corruption.. As I wrote before: None court of law has proved the allegations of this case. According to WP Biography of living person’s principle, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In addition, the information of section “present” only talks about Mr. Betancourt’s legal issues. It is so faint.

––Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I’m not working for a PR company, I’m assuming that I can improve the article as many times as necessary, without having anyone revert my changes. I’m adding sourced information about early life and bussines career, please do not revert changes. Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

restoring sourced content about a BLP that is relevant and not subject to some "innocent till guilty" rule
The most reliable sources listed in this BLP at from the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, HuffPo, and so on. They *all* relate to accusations of corruption. Those working for a PR company please STOP editing this willy nilly. 72.69.11.102 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear 72.69.11.102

1.      I am adding value to this article following WP rules, clearly there is no Neutral Point of View in what you keep on writing. It is not about perceptions, it’s about being neutral and allocating writings in their proper place:

1.1  Normally in WP, the top paragraph of a Biography gives a brief description of the person and the relevance they have in, the info you added in the top paragraph doesn’t describe Mr. Betancourt, doesn’t correspond to the Wikipedia principle BOLP that you already mention,   same as section allegations ….. I’m not even deleting what you wrote.

1.2  Even though you cite correct sources, the information has not been proved by any court of law.

2.      For the record, before I changed the article, I suggested changes in the talk, you never responded to those changes and then reversed almost everything I did. Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverting non neutral information about BOLP
Mr. Betancourt’s Biography has a lot more to offer than his recently legal circumstances. Many business men such as Warren Buffet, Carlos Slim, Gustavo Cisneros, have gone through lawsuits and legal actions during their business careers, not meaning that this is an aspect to write about in their Biography. In fact, I couldn’t find a WP biography of living person that contents information about a lawsuit that doesn’t even have a court decision. Furthermore, the “accusation information” written in Mr. Betancourt’s Biography is attempting against WP good faith and neutral point of view principles. Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Eleonora, Mr. Betancourt isn't Warren Buffet. His notability is, in fact, directly related to his legal troubles. He splashed on stage into the public consciousness due to the allegations of corruption against him and his company. And, if you read above, you will see why so many people object to PR people (like you) fiddling with the page to cover things up. It isn't going to work. Sorry. 72.69.11.102 (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear 72.69.11.10

It seems to me that you want me to be a PR to discredit my contributions. To be clear: I’m not a PR, and, as everyone who is interested in contributing to build knowledge in WP, have the right to place my opinions.

You believe Mr. Betancourt’s notability is given by his legal aspects, I believe he’s notability is given by his business career. According to WP principles of notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Mr. Betancourt is not relevant for his legal recent circumstances. As I have stated many times: “every person is innocent until proven the contrary” by a court of law.

Furthermore, the information presented in the article has no balance: the same “lawsuit bla bla” information is written in 3 different sections with different words, and you keep on giving it disproportionate importance. For now,I will not ask to delete it, but to give it the proper relevance, and to put it in the proper section.

Mr. Betancourt is a business man, as it is known, many business man have gone through legal battles. You don’t want to take Warren Buffet’s example, let’s take Donald Trump’s, also a business man known for many good things he has done and different legal issues. In his BLP, Trump’s “legal affairs” and “Litigation” information is written in a specific section, is not repetitive, and has a neutral tone. That is exactly what I’m asking for Betancourt’s BLP.

Last but not least, please let new content in. It is more of a fact information I added about family and career than lawsuit information that has not even been proven by a court of law. Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Eleonora, consider this
An editor "stopping by" stated: This article, about the CEO of a Venezuelan/Panamanian/Barbados/US company by the name Derwick Associates was created by a user who I suspect has been retained for PR purposes (Majogomezsz). The original version didn't contain a single RS and was all puffery and immediately nominated for deletion. The folks I suspect are PR mavens fought to keep the page. Then, individuals adding RS material kept getting reverted because these were seen as "attacks" and "defamation." Newsworthy current affairs matters in major mainstream press is relevant for a BLP. Extra care needs to be taken to ensure balance, neutrality, and fairness. However, just because a news article contains severe and grave material doesn't mean it cannot be included. Eleonora: why are you a single-purpose user? Why so obsessed with this BLP?

The fact of the matter is that a former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela and senior State Dept. official sued Mr. Betancourt in a NY Federal Court accusing them of paying bribes in Venezuela and engaging in all sorts of criminal activity including surveillance of journalists, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and he filed the case under the RICO statute, which is what prosecutors use when dealing with a "criminal enterprise" (usually the mob).

One month after this BLP was created (if my nexis chronology isn't missing anything) another lawsuit was filed, this time by a human rights lawyer in New York (who apparently is also a columnist for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and other sources used as RS on wikipedia). That particular lawsuit accuses Betancourt, his company, and his partners of engaging in bribery in Venezuela at the highest level as well as maliciously defaming journalists engaged in investigative reporting about their alleged crimes. That lawsuit was filed in Florida State court. Anyone who has access to nexis or who can search for the information about Betancourt, his company and their legal troubles will find that it has been reported extensively in Spain, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, the U.S., and so on in RSs and in dozens of blogs and nonRS media to list.

In a fascinating turn, Reporters Without Borders, a highly reputable NGO based in Paris has published research indicating that Betancourt and his company Derwick (or someone who sympathizes with them) has successfully banned certain websites that talk about the allegations against them--on ALL cable and ISP companies inside Venezuela.

I also note, for the benefit of anyone actually searching about Mr. Betancourt either by his full name (Leopoldo Alejandro Betancourt Lopez, or by the name he apparently uses, Alejandro Betancourt Lopez), that there appears to be a deliberate effort to protect him and his company, Derwick from anyone seeking information about them via google... someone has engaged in an ungodly amount of "astroturfing" on behalf of Betancourt by creating multiple accounts for him and his company on heavily trafficked platforms including: Twitter, Spotify, Myspace, Facebook, TwitPic, Reverbnation, Slideshare, PRweb, Newsvine, Jigsy, and lots of blogspot. They've even got a bizarre page on change.org with two bogus "petitions"

None of these pages appear to be used for corporate purposes and the entries (if any) are from months or years ago and appear to be SEO work. It's filler to clog up my google search engine so that any actual news coverage from reliable sources like the Dow Jones Newswire, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, or even the Miami Herald do not show up in a search engine. See for yourself:

http://alejandrobetancourtlopez.blogspot.com/ https://myspace.com/leopoldobetancourtlopez http://www.purevolume.com/leopoldoalejandrobetancourtlopez/ http://leopoldoalejandrobetancourtlopez.wallinside.com/ http://leopoldobetancourtlopez.newsvine.com http://www.slideshare.net/derwickassociates https://twitter.com/derwickcorp http://derwick-associates.blogspot.com/ http://cvhatmasr.com/job/17483/leopoldo-alejandro-betancourt-lopez-at-leopoldo-alejandro-betancourt-lopez/ http://www.dingjiasiwang.com/how-does-leopoldo-alejandro-betancourt-lopez-wind-energy-perform/ http://jastag.com/index.php?do=/blog/tag/leopoldo-alejandro-betancourt-l-243pez/ http://derwickassociates.jigsy.com/ http://derwick.newsvine.com/ http://www.reverbnation.com/derwickassociates http://derwickassociate hubpages com/ https://www.change.org/organizations/derwick_associates

There is obviously nothing illegal about creating the internet equivalent of "white noise" or astroturfing but it can lead someone like me to be extraordinarily skeptical, especially when I read from an RS that Mr. Betancourt's company has persecuted journalists and had them offered bribes and when that didn't work, had the journalists harassed by the Venezuelan secret police: Here's one NGO http://ipys.org.ve/alerta/autor-de-investigaciones-periodisticas-sobre-sector-electrico-es-citado-por-presunto-funcionario-de-policia-de-inteligencia-e-intimidado-por-empresa-contratista-2/

And here's a reporter for Monocle on the same subject:

http://settysoutham.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/venezuelan-intelligence-defends-derwick-associates-from-the-deadly-peril-of-journalism/

Consequently, those I suspect are working at a PR company (users Tony3485 and Majogomezsz) ELEONORA DOES THIS INCLUDE YOU? Be on polite notice: you will be treated fairly here, you will be interacted with on good faith, you will be addressed with civility, but you will not be allowed (by me, at least, when I can get time off work) to do here, in an encyclopedia, what you or someone with the same objectives have been able to accomplish elsewhere on the internet. Obviously, the two single-purpose users that have been reverting my edits (and others they bring in) are going to continue. However, I ask anyone visiting or concerned about edit-warring, or balance, or NPOV that take these discussions with a very large grain of salt given the voluminous information that exists, the bad faith of Mr. Betancourt with regard to covering up negative information rather than responding to it, the Reporters Without Borders involvement (https://wefightcensorship.org/censored/corruption-limits-venezuelan-internethtml.html), and the persecution of legitimate, independent, Award-winning journalists who have dared to write about what they believe are the illegal actions of this company and its principals. The two lawsuits against him are surely going to continue to get some coverage in RS media in the U.S. and I will update the information accordingly--including the responses and denials by the company and its executives.

27.122.12.79 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no citation for this claim: "He belongs to a wealthy and well-known family of Caracas, linked to the local oligarchy that dates back to his great grandfather figure Hermógenes López as 22nd president of the Republic of Venezuela. President Lopez was one of the persons responsible for bringing electricity to Valencia, at the time the most important state of Venezuela" in the first graf.

proposed removal of information that has no references or citations
There is no citation for this claim: "Alejandro Betancourt has a double major in Economics and Business Administration from the Suffolk University of Massachusetts, United States. He started his career in ICC-OEOC company specializing in the energy sector and in the exploration, production and trade oil and its derivatives, with presence in the U.S., Europe, Middle East, South America and Africa. He has served as business manager for Latin America. He later worked in Guruceaga Group, a company dedicated to international trade in goods, finance, real estate and farm, of which he was manager of new business; and BGB Energy, a company that was responsible for representing, in joint venture with the old GESCA GAS in Venezuela, international corporation Kawasaki Heavy Industries. As chief executive of BGB Energy participated in the Proyecto de interconexión Centro Occidente (ICO) of Venezuela and also in a workshop planning for packaging related to power generation equipment."

And the only "source" given for this is the subject's personal website. It doesn't pass muster.

I keep looking for an RS which can support either claim but cannot find it and the editors in question appear to misunderstand how to use talk or how referencing works. Consequently, i will remove the information mid-week if nobody steps in... 27.122.12.68 (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Added two references, and changed an external link and I will continue working to improve the article.--Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Eleonora Venezuela. Your references do not meet wikipedia standards. As such it is as good as unsourced information. I've removed the unsourced information that you placed on your client's page.  You continue to revert the information yet there is no RS that exists that includes this.  Using his personal website or some amateur online blog of an unknown reporter is not a valid source.  Sorry.  Over the last few weeks I notice that several other editors have asked you not to continue to engaging in edit-warring with regard to Betancur. If you cannot provide a Reliable Source then the information will be removed.  Thanks for understanding.  This is not a space for public relations work.  This article and the company article associated with it has been fraught with sockpuppetry and manipulation... it tests the limit of good faith to continue to do this.  Thanks for understanding. 27.122.12.78 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello anonymous, this is the third time that you acuse me personally of been a PR, In case It was not clear the first time, the answer is NO. I ask you to please stop acusing me personally and try to do constructive editing of the article. I may not be an expert on Wikipedia, but to me constantly and systematically deleting information and references without reaching first a consensus, is in my view, more vandalizing than constructive editing. You placed tags, I consider that correct and constructive, what I consider not proper is to start deleting content when another editor starts adding citations. And even less constructive, to delete references such as an article from a respected web publishing company about top bussiness men and politicians (please check ISBN-978-84-616-4287-8) and a technical article about the History of Electricity in Venezuela from a university that cites a book as its source. I hope you understand, that I must revert your changes to protect the article, I ask you to please make your future contributions more constructive --Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Eleanora is doing a great job and is right with the tags requirements. I virtually fail to understand the purpose of editing and emphasize the controversial profile under an anonymous IP, this kind of editions do not meet our good will viewpoints. This place is not a private battlefield to blame others so take it easy and try to be constructive. I added the article to my watchlist as well. Greetings!--Gilwellian (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * editing under an IP as opposed to a username is perfectly acceptable on wikipedia. Unlike you, I don't seek to mask my identity with a username.  The fact is that if you read this talk page from top to bottom you will find that the subject of this entry and his company have been determined by several international NGOs to be engaged in harassment of journalists. None other than Reporters Without Borders has written about the subject.  If you do not like edits where editors seek ensure the entry fits in with WP:RS then find other sources.  In the meantime, please stop with the reversions or get the puffery sources accepted as RSs.27.122.12.68 (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your editions on wikipedia are limited on this article only. I'm kindly asking to stop bringing your particular war focused on this person at once. This is not the right place for that. The article is actually rather close of what wikipedia is asking for. Thanks.--Gilwellian (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My editions are limited to the subjects that I find interesting. I note that you, too, are keenly interested in this subject. I have no war but I do like to observe WP--why don't you?  Why do you revert every time I remove material that isn't backed up by an RS?  Why allow the use of non-RS? Kindly explain.  Thanks. 27.122.12.74 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this one, the last you did amendments? Is Alek Boyd a reliable source? The same Alek Boyd who spread crap about everything so his websites have been already blocked by court? Even he's using other honest websites to camouflage his activity THIS IS NOT a reliable source. Period. Btw, are you Alek Boyd perhaps? Because your IP is a hidden one, a masked one through 'Hong Kong' servers. And yes, I'm interested in this article because the weird editing activity in both Spanish and English wikis beyond any logic despite the guy is on charge of corruption (or not). Next step, Derwick Associates, so wait and see. Again, kindly stop in flooding the wiki with your alleged good will under wikipedia criteria. --Gilwellian (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Primicias24 is not an RS. If you have confusion or lack of knowledge about what is and what is not an RS please see the WP message boards about RSs.  Reporters Without Borders is, indeed, an RS.  And the information in the link that you removed is perfectly usable for WP.  You seem to know something about Alek Boyd that I ignore.  Please add more details.  Again: RSF is indeed an RS.  They reviewed the Boyd stuff and placed it in their article.  That's all good for WP.  Kindly stop reacting emotionally to my edits and read up on WP:RS.  Cheers.  27.122.12.74 (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not Alek Boyd. And if you actually read the entries above about what has happened to those who write about Derwick you would be less "interested" and more appalled. 27.122.12.74 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, interesting discussion. Okay, once I was asking for other opinions I agree with the Reporters Without Borders edition but this should be placed in Derwick Associates, not here. If we can work a deal and keep the article as neutral as possible respecting, so would you please transfer the edition on the right place? Thanks! :)--Gilwellian (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I will modify the text slightly so that it can remain relevant to this particular page. The lawsuit by Reich is against Betancourt, not against Derwick. I will respond to Eleanora below.27.122.12.77 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view this discussion is again getting too personal. As far as the content posted by the IP user, I would like to share my point of view after reading the mentioned pages. I think there are three valid references from which to draw information. 1.- the wefightcensorship (link above) in which they published the claim by the blogger mentioned above that Derwick was responsible for blocking his blog in Venezuela in retaliation for writing articles against them. To substantiate his accusation the blogger also claimed that Derwick had links with one of the internet providers, and that all other internet providers in the country simply "followed suit" and decided to also block his blog. 2.- An article published in primicias24 (link above) in which it says in Spanish that a Venezuelan court ordered the blocking by all ISP of the country of the pages included the mentined blog of that same blogger. as a result of a defamation suit filed by two brothers Majed Khalil Majzoud and Khaled Khalil Majzoudin regarding other publications made by the blogger against them that have no relation with Derwick. I Include below a quote from that article in Spanish: "Luego que los ciudadanos Majed Khalil Majzoud y Khaled Khalil Majzoud interpusieran, el pasado 13 de diciembre de 2013 una acusación penal privada en contra del ciudadano venezolano Aleksander Boyd Arregui, alias Alek Boyd, C.I.-V: ########; el Tribunal Décimo de Juicio de Primera Instancia en lo Penal del Área Metropolitana de Caracas acordó, como Medida Precautelar Innominada, suspender temporalmente  la transmisión en las plataformas electrónicas venezolanas de los portales web que maneja el demandado". 3.- the letter published as a link in the previously mentioned article of wefightcensorship where Derwick formally denies having any part in the blocking of the page of the blogger.

The fact is that the blog is indeed bocked in Venezuela by all ISP. To me the claim that an ISP company can block pages arbitrarily is not very reasonable but to claim that, because one does it, all the competing companies are going to do the same "just to follow suit" defies common sense. (mentioned companies where Inter, Movistar, Digitel GSM, Supercable and the state-owned CANTV). Common sense dictates that if all ISP in Venezuela block a page, that can only be as a result of a court order. as stated in point 2 above. There is no mention of Derwick in that court order.

This is why, even though I consider the sources valid, I don´t think the content to be appropriate. if it is as it seems false, readers might consider it to be defamatory. I also agree with Gilwellian that is not relevant for a BLP. For all this reasons I think it should be removed.

I apologize for having to post such a lengthy explanation. --Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I had my doubts up to now and was looking for consensus, but after your argument, I completely agree. Lets see what other editors say before move a finger straightaway.--Gilwellian (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Gilwellian and Eleanora: I am grateful for the explanation. Let's go through this item by item. Reporters Without Borders has done an investigation and they concluded that Alek Boyd, the investigative journalist, was censored in Venezuela. Primicias24 is hardly a credible source (it is certainly *not* an RS). It is not a newspaper or a magazine, it is a blogging portal with news items by a man named Carlos Herrera who has personal issues with Alek Boyd to the point that he has posted such gems as this one: http://www.primicias24.com/actualidad/alek-boyd-has-aids/ I think you should read it, it is a shining example of the kind of journalism on that site.

Which Juan Nagel eviscerates here: http://caracaschronicles.com/2014/03/27/banned-in-caracas/

And Boyd himself does here: http://infodio.com/primicias24/carlos/herrera/homophobia

And let's actually bring in folks who are renown Venezuelan bloggers, that is, people whose knowledge of the subject is not ignored such as Daniel Duquenal, here: http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2014/01/internet-censorship-in-venezuela-it-has.html

So, let's not be disingenuous and pretend that Primicias24 and Reporters Without Borders are on the same page. Oh, and let's also consider that the "blogger" Alek Boyd is a columnist (and has been for more than a year) for Spain's most prominent newspaper, certainly an RS. Check this out: http://elpais.com/autor/alek_boyd/a/

you conclude: "Common sense dictates that if all ISP in Venezuela block a page, that can only be as a result of a court order. as stated in point 2 above. There is no mention of Derwick in that court order." There is no credible or reliable source that is establishing the existence of any court order. Let's not pretend otherwise. Venezuela is not a place of rule of law or independent courts.

I do not believe that any of this should be removed. But I do agree that the qualifiers in that paragraph need to be changed to make them relevant to this BLP. I shall attempt it now.

Cheers and thanks for your patience. 27.122.12.77 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Anonymous: once again you are introducing content that in my opinion is more suited for a blog or forum etc. and should not be in a talk page of a BLP. This space should not be used to judge anyone, including the blogger you just posted very personal information about or the judicial system of Venezuela. It should be used to help improve the article by determining if the content is relevant to the biography, well sourced, has a neutral point of view. Editors should avoid using wikipedia as a way to constantly push one sided or potentially libellous information. The alledged personal issues that you mentioned do not invalidate the news source Primicias24 which has been used repeatedly as RS in multiple wikipedia articles both in this wikipedia and in Spanish Wikipedia The simple argument is that companies like Movistar, a major telecommunications company from Spain, present in 14 countries don't block pages if they are not forced to by an order to do so. Certainly not just to "follow suit" of what a competing company did. It defies common sense. As stated above, the content you added and you recenty appendend is irrelevant for the BLP, and most importantly potentially defamatory. It should be removed as soon as possible.--Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! So anonymous, if you have any problem, I'm kindly ask you to contact some wiki administrator. Thanks.--Gilwellian (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
I removed the sentence "all projects have been completed". On the Derwick page it clearly states that not all of its projects are 100% completed. Besides, this is not notable for Betancourt's page.

In retrospect, both sides have been using Non-RSs and are using a lot of puffery and unneccesary info. I will go through this page again and add back what I can properly source. I have removed several lines with questionable sourcing that does not meet RS standards. If more valid sourcing can be found, I myself will personally add details back. But a webpage from Derwick or from a private firm listing the accolades of Betancourt is not RS.

The award was for Derwick, not Betancourt. Betancourt physically received the award, yes, but it was for Derwick and should therefore be covered on the Derwick page, not here.

On the last sentence of the page, there were some questionable sources being used, It was unclear if they were truly RS. I removed them since the sentence is covered in other references that are certianly RS (Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post)

Also in the lead-in, I simplified the description since it is covered again in another section.

In conclusion: I am done for now. But this page has a lot of work that needs to be done. I will come back to it, and I will improve it as best I can. There cant be much more added until we find better sourcing. Righteousskills (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You have vandalized the page by deleting almost all information about the person along with all suporting RS and leaving the article almost exclusivelly about the defamation suits. I have reverted the changes. I ask you to Please respect the work of other editors in the future--Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eleanora edits. All deletions are not suitable so please, in front of doubts avoid them, therefore add "citation required" or similar. Thanks!--Gilwellian (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold back on the accusations there, this does not constitute vandalism. I understand your concern, and will continue working with you. But there are some major concerns. 1. you must understand that it is YOUR task to prove that sources are reliable and that the information is truly notable; it is not my task to disprove them to the greater Wikipedia community. As of now no such consensus has been reached. 2. Several of these Spanish language sources may not qualify as RS and are certainly questionable (hence, me questioning them). If they are opinion pieces, or press releases for the companies image, or have any type of bias they are not RS.

You appear to be newer users and therefore may not be completely understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policy. No problem, Im happy to work alongside anyone, regardless of experience level. Just because something is factual in the world, it doesnt mean that it is 1. notable or 2. covered by reliable sources. Please do not revert any more until you've submitted ample evidence first; its your job to prove why this info should be in, not mine to prove why it should be out.

Please review these Wikipedia policies before continuing.
 * Verifiability
 * Verifiability
 * Identifying reliable sources
 * Notability

If you have any questions or concerns, I would like to help out as much as possible on this pageRighteousskills (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, but as Eleanora said, please avoid deletion of almost all information about the person and leaving the article almost exclusivelly about the defamation suits. Not about you, but I personally suspect that for such a trivial pair of articles have too many dark issues and hidden interests behind. --Gilwellian (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If the sourcing for the other information were certainly an RS (like the Wall Street Journal) then I would add it back myself. But the quality of the sources is in dispute. I understand your concern about leaving the page as nothing more than a negative view of Betancourt and the company...but in the past, negative details about him have been removed because they were poorly sourced as well. You are right, the page should not be left as nothing more than an attack piece; but it also does not get to be a public relations puffery piece with poor sources. I do appreciate the civility here, but we need to continue this discussion Righteousskills (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You removed RS that is not in dispute, I don't agree with you, but at least you are now addressing your concerns in the talk page and I also appreciate that.Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to intrude, I just added NPOV to the latest edition as I did in Derwick's page. The way it was written was both biased and inaccurate, this person was not claimed to be under preliminary investigation anywhere in the article. The cited sources of the WSJ article "people familiar with the matter" just mentioned Derwick.46.24.172.71 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal August 2014
Ha! Well hello there, 46.24.172.71! So glad to get a NEW and UNBIASED opinion..

The fact is that the recent article by the WSJ is notable, RS, and VERY significant. The WSJ info stays. That is not up for debate. If these edits are reverted again I will be forced to seek mediation or arbitration. We can discuss OTHER sources and sections further... but you cannot remove this. That is in gross violation of WP policy. Righteousskills (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? If I edit, you will be forced to seek for arbitration? Is this a threat? Done! Hereby, I'm pointing at you of being involved in a conflict of interests, Mr. Righteousskills, or should I call you Anonymous?, because your editions are in fact clones of the previous anonymous editor who has been very insistent for a long time; it seems that your IP were blocked by an administrator despite your excuse of being hacked in public wi-fi areas therefore I am the one who will look for an administrator to arbitrate and help on this matter. I firmly believe that behind your biased edits, you are looking for something else than a neutral and informative article so I won't waste too much time on this issue. Take care.--Gilwellian (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Drivel. Your claims that I am those IPs are unfounded. The unregistered IP is not me, but I welcome them. Its funny, you didnt complain about the unregistered IPs BEFORE they started supporting my view. Its not biased if its the truth!!! It is covered in the Wall Street Journal! That's pretty undeniably big! Righteousskills (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Gilwellian, Thank you! glad to know that I am not the only one that thinks there is something suspicious going on.
 * Righteousskills, given the circumstances I have decided to register so you can stop using that as an excuse to ignore all my arguments. As far as your recent edits, I reverted them for the second time now. As I said before, the way it was written was both biased and inaccurate, this person was not claimed to be under preliminary investigation anywhere in the article. The cited sources of the WSJ article "people familiar with the matter" just mentioned Derwick. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The same edit referred to in the previous paragraph in violation of NPOV and whith false info about this BLP was sneaked in bad faith, two minutes before while this page was been blocked after 116.193.159.36's similar edit was reverted by the admin at Derwicks page and he was warned that both pages were about to be blocked. Since the page is already blocked I have been sugested to raise the issue at WP:BLPN and will do so to try to restore the BLP. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The info from the new WSJ article is RS, notable, and VERY relevant. This cannot simply be removed because you call it "bad faith". Righteousskills (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for administrator help
An edit that was both biased and inaccurate was sneaked in just as the BLP for Alejandro Betancourt López was been protected from edit warring. 116.193.159.36 sneaked in the edit 2 minutes before, as the page was been blocked by an administrator. One minute before this edit another very similar edit by 116.193.159.36 was reverted by the administrator at Derwick Associates. The administrator warned the user that both pages were about to be blocked, and he managed to sneak it in right before it got blocked. View Derwick's history and view BLP's history

The edit changed an NPOV paragraph that was citing the two conflicting versions citing their respective primary sources into a biased paragraph that stated opinions as facts and used biased language, for example changed "preliminary investigations" for "criminal investigations". 116.193.159.36 mentioned directly the BLP as been involved in a criminal investigation, but even the primary source in the article "people familiar with the matter" mention only Derwick Associates as been under preliminary investigations. No where is it mentioned that the BLP is directly under any kind of preliminary investigation. 116.193.159.36 also inserted the incorrect and misleading information a second time at the top of the page. Click here to see. I am sorry to have to take the time of an administrator, but I wanted to raise the issue since it states as fact a serious and unsourced accusation in a BLP There seem to be other interests at play that have nothing to do with improving the article. It was constantly receiving negative contributions in violation of WP from IP's suspicious of been from anonymous proxies. After their edits stopped, probably after been blocked, Righteouskills asked for an IP block to be lifted. It was denied and then started editing using the account, and did a series of very questionable edits (please read section on Derwick and section on edit warring on user's talk), all of them seemingly aimed at preparing the groundwork to be able to insert the information from the cited article in the most damaging way possible. Which was done just as soon as it was published in all the articles he created on the previous days (as if he had a connection to the anonymous sources of the article). After Righteousskills was warned not to continue editing the page, the IP edits started again. This caused the block of both pages, and that is when they managed to insert the edit. I do not have proof that the IP users and Righteousskills are one and the same, but the revision history for both this articles in the English and Spanish Wikipedia is suspicious.

In summary I request an administrator to please revert this edit done in bad faith and inserted as the article was been blocked because: --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It states opinion as fact (the only primary source cited various time in the article is some anonymous "people familiar with the matter" the writer did not contact the authorities to check their claims)
 * It is false and misleading, only Derwick is claimed by the anonymous sources to be under "preliminary investigations". The BLP is not mentioned to be part of any preliminary investigation, yet in the summary of the article it was stated as fact that he is part of a "criminal investigation"

To any administrator who takes up this case:

Please consider both sides of this dispute. Crystallizedcarbon has been very accusatory, very uncivil, and has been misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. There was nothing in violation of NPOV, or RS, or BLP, or anything! It was taken from the Wall Street Journal and covered a very relevant and important case. This editor, along with others, have been attempting to whitewash what the article says and water-down the allegations it brings against Derwick and Betancourt. I hope any admins who look at this will not jump to Crystallizedcarbon's side since they submitted the request. Righteousskills (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the IP's edit and slightly reworded the coverage of the investigation in line with WP:SAID and with what the source said. In particular, the source never claimed that Betancourt himself or Trebbau were personally investigated. Making such a claim without a reliable source backing it up is an obvious BLP violation. Huon (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally some common sense! By the way, the Derwick Associates sections on legal disputes are too lengthy so I strongly recommend to summarize something; now almost all contributions seems to have been written based on extracts of media news, which is not the most appropriate for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject.--Gilwellian (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I must heartily disagree. Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons; in this instance the executives of the company, Betancourt included. The article points to this several times. For example it states: "Mr. Betancourt and a cousin, Pedro Trebbau, registered Derwick in Venezuela in 2009 and drew the attention of opponents of the Chávez regime because of the large volume of business they did with the government." It is indicating that there is suspicion of these two men's activities due to the company's high volume of business. Please reconsider this decision. The criminal investigations into the company will directly affect Betancourt if charges are filed. Righteousskills (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Then provide a reliable source that says a criminal investigation is underway and that Betancourt and Trebbau are its subjects. It's a long way from "X registered the company, which is now under investigation" to "X is now under criminal investigation". Huon (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can not prove it with a current RS since the article does not explicitly state that "Betancourt is under criminal investigation". However, given the nature of the Corporate Criminal Liability act in US Legal Code, I believe it is reason enough to state Betancourt is under investigation. This statute (CCLA) states that a crime committed by an individual, while under scope of employment of the company (or an agent), and to benefit said company, can be charged against the company. Bribery, corruption, and banking violations are criminal acts committed by a person. In this case it is alleged that Betancourt and other executives of the company committed these crimes, for which the company they acted on behalf is under investigation. Although Derwick is liable for these acts, monetarily and reputedly, it does not mean the agents of these crimes are not immune from prosecution. Derwick is under investigation for crimes allegedly committed by Betancourt and the executives. The investigations, therefore, are also of Betancourt. Righteousskills (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was explaining US Legal Code. But actually, there is this and this . These were the charges brought in a civil court. The same charges are now being investigated criminally. Righteousskills (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a criminal investigation, find a reliable source that says so. Otherwise see WP:OR, especially WP:SYN. Huon (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Very well. I will continue searching into this. Righteousskills (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation
Hello all. I just wanted to bring to light to anyone still active on these pages that there is an ongoing sock puppet investigation into a number of users and it has already caught some who have been active on this page. Although it is possible that those involved had good intentions, it is nonetheless a circumventing of WP Policy. I am unsure of what the implications for the content of the page are, but all active users should be made aware of this. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is troubling that users would use means such as this to accomplish a goal no matter the consequences. Let's all try to learn something as the SPI is furthered and be vigilant of any further activity on these pages.Righteousskills (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reich Suit
Since the corruption and RICO charges have been dismissed about a month ago from Reich's suit (US judge turns down complaint against Derwick's partners), I have removed them from the paragraph. I also removed the mention in the paragraph that the sources are WSJ and Huffington Post, as it is clearly stated in the reference section. I think it is relevant that the BLP subject is currently been sued, but not what media reported it. Finally I removed additional sources as redundant, since WSJ and Huffington Post are more than adequate.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is fine, the RICO charges were dropped. But we must be clear that the defamation and bribery suits still stand for the time being. And generally, you dont need to remove sources on the grounds of there being too many. More is always better than less. Righteousskills (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the additional ref from the WSJ that you included as source for the dismissal of charges requires subscription, I also added the one I mentioned in my original explanation above from El Universal. Within it, it is clearly stated that now the suit is only a defamation suit: "With regard to bribery, the judge replied that those charges "never caused any damage to complainants." Following Oetken's ruling, the proceeding has been reduced to defamation."
 * As far as sources go, in my opinion, too many redundant sources are not always better. Sources should be used to back the information included in the article, once that is achieved, any additional sources may add undue weight, to exaggerate the argument. If a positive or negative information is covered by twenty sources, I don't think that all twenty sources should be inserted, regardless on how reliable they are. In this case, I think the ref from the WSJ for the suit, and the one from El Universal for the dismissal of everything but defamation, should be more than adequate.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We will have to look more into this. It is unclear if bribery charges were also dropped. Racketeering is not the same. In the WSJ article it implies that both defamation AND bribery are still part of the suit. However, I think we should look for other sources.

And as far as sourcing, yea sure, when you get to a point when there are ten sources covering an issue, you don't need to cite them all. But it never hurts to have more than one. Righteousskills (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Guruceaga Group
I found and added a reference for the founding date of the company, for the citation needed for Guruceaga Group the only reference I was able to find was in the BLP's personal page. I don't know if this is controversial information, I would like to get the opinion of other editors, if we determine it is controversial, and if no one else can find a valid reference I think it should be removed.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I did not found any references about the company, and there have been no comments, I removed the information on Guruceaga Group from the article.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary investigation
I think that the paragraph about the preliminary investigations should be removed from the article. The primary source are anonymous people that according to the WSJ are familiar with the matter. This people claimed in the article Derwick, not the BLP was under preliminary investigations back in august of 2014, and that an actual investigation on the company might or might not be launched. WSJ also published that a lawyer on behalf of the company denied having been contacted by any authorities. Since the alleged preliminary investigation was on the company and not on the BLP, since the primary sources are anonymous and if no new reliable sources are found to indicate clearly that the BLP is under an actual investigation (9 months have passed), or better arguments for keeping the statement are given by other editors, I will remove the information as it does no longer seem relevant in this BLP and to avoid any possible misinterpretation per WP:BLPCRIME.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the inappropriate content as per above.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Been awhile since Ive been around. I think we need to address this a little bit more. First of all, lets not dismiss the Wall Street Journal due its sources being anonymous. WSJ is one of the foremost newspapers in the world and its anonymous sources are vouched for and highly credible; they choose to remain anonymous so as to to not give their identity away (which could either 1. endanger them or 2. eliminate the hopes of them getting any more credible info in the future). So lets agree to not toss out the WSJ just because its sources dont name themselves. Righteousskills (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, in regards to the claim that the suit was against Derwick and not Betancourt, there are sources revealing that the suit was in fact against both Derwick and its owners. This holds true both with the suits of bribery and defamation. (http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html) Righteousskills (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It also needs to be noted that there are several suits in question. And that the defamation suit that was dismissed was Otto Reich's suit, not Thor Halvorsen's. Also, Reich's suit was dismissed on the grounds of jurisdiction, not because of a lack of evidence. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-dismisses-defamation-claims-brought-by-former-u-s-diplomat-1430438456; http://www.law360.com/articles/650133/energy-execs-in-1b-bribery-suit-out-of-judge-s-reach)
 * We need to organize the complaints in a comprehensive fashion. Its certain that some of the suits still stand. Im going to look more in depth into this. Righteousskills (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Righteousskills, I reverted your changes about the preliminary investigations. Please discuss here before making changes to the current version of article.
 * The information you added is not encyclopedic and should not be added to the BLP. Let me summarize the reasons:
 * I agree that the WSJ is a very reputable source, but all that it is telling us about the primary source of the information is that they are anonymous people familiar with the matter. Many people with or without potential interests could fit that description. Regardless of the reasons for their anonymity the author made clear in the article that they were his only source and he did not mention any double check with authorities (the people familiar with the matter are cited in every single claim, 7 times in total).
 * No, from a source as credible as the Wall Street Journal, anonymous contacts means they are someone from the justice department, involved in the actual case, or perhaps an employee from Derwick. Its not just some guy. Its someone who has an expertise and authority on the subject. Righteousskills (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No where in the article is it mentioned that the subject of the BLP is under any kind of investigation, just Derwick is mentioned.
 * It says that Derwick AND its owners are under investigation Righteousskills (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only mention of the subject of the BLP in the article is that he declared that the company has not been notified of any such investigation, that is obviously not relevant enough for inclusion on the BLP
 * Same as above. It says Derwick AND its owner are under investigation. Righteousskills (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The anonymous sources claim that the company was under preliminary investigations that may or may not result on an actual investigation or charges. 11 months have passed and there are no reliable sources to confirm that any such investigation took or is taking place.
 * The time frame is not really an issue. It is not uncommon for court cases like this to last for years. In fact, 11 months is probably on the shorter end of investigations into this kind of thing. Righteousskills (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The information could be misinterpreted to assume that the subject of the BLP is under an investigation so it should be removed per WP:BLPCRIME
 * The subject of the BLP is under investigation as well. Righteousskills (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The information is already included in Derwick Associates's page.
 * Not whats relevant to the BLP. Righteousskills (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the reasons given above the time past and the lack of new reliable sources confirming whether the alleged investigation took place I think the information is no longer relevant. Still, it can be found in the article about the company. Since the information is directly related to Derwick, even if it may no longer be relevant, I think it makes sense to still wait for new sources before editing that article. What is clear is that it should not be copied also onto this BLP.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I will address all the issues above underneath each line. Sorry if that is confusing but its probably the best way to answer your questions. In conclusion, the reliable source's date is of no concern really. The investigation is still going. It is until the justice department announces ALL investigations are over. Righteousskills (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I asked you before, please do not change the article without first reaching a consensus. This is the second time I have to revert the material which you inserted after giving you the reasons why it violates our policy. please refer to WP:3RR and to WP:BRDC. Lets discuss first, reach a consensus, and include it only after agreeing that it is relevant and within our guidelines.


 * I do not agree with your arguments I will try to answer your claims point by point:
 * You claim that the anonymous people familiar with the matter must be "someone from the justice department, involved in the actual case, or perhaps an employee from Derwick". That is your opinion and it is in my view WP:OR. I think that if the source was form the justice department there would be no reason for the author not to quote them as "according to anonymous sources from the justice department". And as I said before, many other people some of them with economical or political interests could very well fit the description of people familiar with the matter.
 * It is not up to us to make those assumptions. This is an encyclopedia, it is no place for our opinions or for our original research.
 * You claim that the article says that "Derwick AND its owners are under investigation" Please show me where in the article it said that, and where does it say that the subject of the BLP is under investigation (preliminary or otherwise). Above, on the section "Request for administrator help" of this page you were already told by an administrator that nowhere in the article can it be found that the subject is being investigated and you were advised to review WP:OR.
 * This is not a court case. the article and the information added talk about preliminary investigations that according to the same anonymous sources may or may not end up on an actual investigation or charges, the time past without any news confirming an actual investigation is not conclusive, just an indicator, as if an actual investigation would take place those sources would most likely get in touch with the author. I do agree with you that it does not prove it. It just adds up to the actual reasons that make the information not encyclopedic for the BLP.
 * You insist on your original interpretation that the subject of the BLP is under investigation. All the very reputable source says is that some anonymous people familiar with the matter claimed 11 months ago that the company (not the BLP) was under a preliminary investigation that may or may not have ended up on an actual investigation or any charges. The BLP is not accused of anything, but some readers may make the same assumption in which you insist so much and infer that he is under investigation. So it is my strong view that we should follow the WP:BLPCRIME recommendations and not add that information that in any case is not relevant to the BLP and is already included in the company page.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any new arguments I will be happy to discuss them with you but I ask you again to refrain from changing the article until we reach a consensus.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hang on a second there. Yes, I understand 3RR and BRDC, but you were the first one to remove this content without any such consensus so please refrain from assuming WP:OWN of the page. I dont know what to tell you about your dissatisfaction with WSJ. The WSJ is making those same claims their anonymous sources are.

There are sources that state the owners of Derwick are under investigation as well, not just the firm.
 * Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies."
 * And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez, for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials."
 * And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials."
 * And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars."

Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached. Righteousskills (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned at WP:BLPN, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company.
 * Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing.
 * The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation.
 * You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP.
 * It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.
 * I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from the WP:BLPN.
 * Please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined at WP:BLPN if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I Have restored the article again, as the issue has not been resolved at BLPN (see here). As suggested at BLPN, if you still feel that the content does not violate our policies I will be happy to seek dispute resolution, please refrain from adding back the content until it is determined if it conforms to our policies.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear the last admin active on the BLPN supported inclusion of the paragraph. Righteousskills (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, only an editor (not an admin and also not the last to contribute) wrote he supported inclusion. After explaining to him the reasons and policies he did no further comments and dropped the argument.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"I think the content meets our standards for inclusion. The reasons given by Crystallizedcarbon above are weak at best.  A high-profile investigation of a company is relevant to the biography of that company's CEO.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)" And then the "reasons and policies" were your opinion. Righteousskills (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This was my response at BLPN:
 * "That does not seem to be the case. What the RS reported is that Anonymous sources claim that the company was a year ago under a preliminary investigation. They also said that it may or may not become an actual investigation. Those allegations were denied by the company itself, and there have not been any news in the last year to substantiate that an actual investigation did or is taking place on the company.
 * According to WP:NOT Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of events, a possible future investigation denied by the company is newsworthy but it is not necessarily suitable for inclusion. Still, it is included in the company page, on top of the questionable enduring notability there is the issue that the editor that pushes for its inclusion insisted adamantly that the text infers as well a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. WP:BLPCRIME should be followed pending any new and more tangible sources. I also agree with Collect. The primary source of the article is anonymous so it is not a good idea to use it in this BLP regardless of who they claim may be investigating or which reliable source reproduces their claims.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)"
 * This wasn't contested by any editor other than yourself, as a reply you said that the WSJ is not anonymous and you asked me not to accuse you of pushing editions as in your view I was doing the same. After coping the section to the notice board a few times without any new input, Fyddlestix, the last editor active in the discussion suggested that it should not be re-posted to BLPN and that if the issue could not be resolved, we should seek dispute resolution.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Original research eliminated
I have removed a recent edit that added information citing two reliable sources: bloomberg and Business Insider) according to both sources a US attorney has requested a number of Swiss banks to send details of wire transfers between 18 Swiss banks in relation to PDVSA, among which it also explicitly cites representatives from Derwick Associates. The problem is that neither source cites which representatives of the company are having their account probed, and since the subject of the BLP is not mentioned, according to WP:OR the information can't be included in the BLP. Without a source that unequivocally mentions the subject, it would be speculation and original research to assume that the subject does have an account in any of the 18 banks and that he also is one of the mentioned representatives whose transactions are been probed specially since it may also violate WP:BLPCRIME. The information removed has been added to Derwick's article, where it is relevant. If I find a reliable source now or in the future that directly mentions the subject I will add the information back to this article.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dismissed suit
I have removed Otto Reich's suit from the article as it has been fully dismissed and should not be included as per WP:BLPCRIME. Multiple sources in Spanish cited the judge critizicing the suitas an atempt to denigrate de judicial system (Example: La Corte de Apelaciones de EE.UU. absuelve al empresario venezolano Alejandro Betancourt and Absuelven al empresario venezolano Alejandro Betancourt). --Guzperez (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alejandro Betancourt López. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140401082454/http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2014/03/29/1713389/banesco-desmiente-el-pago-de-50.html to http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2014/03/29/1713389/banesco-desmiente-el-pago-de-50.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alejandro Betancourt.jpg

Uncited
Moved to talk for sourcing: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Betancourt belongs to a wealthy and well-known family of Caracas, linked to the local oligarchy that dates back to his great grandfather, Hermógenes López, as 22nd president of the Republic of Venezuela. President López was one of the persons responsible for bringing electricity to Valencia, at the time the most important state of Venezuela.

Here is an article from El Mundo: https://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2016/12/07/5841b0a7ca4741d16b8b4639.html "Es bisnieto del que fuera presidente de Venezuela, Hermógenes López".--Guzperez (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The text was in Wikipedia well before that July 2016 El Mundo source, and it is not uncommon for even reliable press to parrot information found on Wikipedia. I won't be adding that info based on that source.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a mayor Spanish publication like El Mundo does some basic fact checking and has editors that review content sources. In the article is not only just mentioned in the text, but also highlighted as an introductory stand-alone phrase at the beginning of the article. There are many more like https://www.modaes.es/empresa/hawkers-paso-de-gigante-abre-su-capital-a-tuenti-y-la-venezolana-ohara-para-superar-los-300-millones-en-2018.html They even named their social responsibility foundation "Hermógenes López" But its up to you. --Guzperez (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk
Hello SandyGeorgia, I noticed you added a claim on Alejandro Betancourt Lopez page claiming that ESIC "rescinded an invitation for Betancourt to speak at an event in Madrid about entrepreneurship, citing his links to Chavismo". The source you used published a rectification of the information previously published: https://www.periodistadigital.com/america/politica/2019/03/18/alejandro-betancourt-lopez-rectificacion-periodista-digital-por-llamarle-chavista.shtml. It stated that Betancourt is not a "Chavista" and was never associated with Chavez, Maduro or their political party. It states that it was one of the 26 companies that built power plants and that it was one of the cheapest, 19th most expensive out of 26. Another source, La Razón (Madrid) published an article that also says that the information used as reference is false: https://www.larazon.es/economia/el-esic-cancela-una-charla-de-hawkers-por-falta-de-aforo-CH22436602. The effort to link him with Chavismo, denied by him various times, is according to Bloomberg due to a family feud for offering to build the power plants while Chavez was in power against the warning of a family member. Henry Ramos Allup claimed that that family member and people working for him are part of a defamation campaign: https://www.reportero24.com/2015/01/04/henry-ramos-allup-laboratorio-sucio/ http://www.noticierodigital.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/Respuesta_de_Henry_Ramos_Allup_a_Thor_Halvorssen_Mendoza_29ene2015.pdf. When I have some time I will send you some information about the blackout. All sources seem to agree that the problem was lack of maintenance and an accidental fire. Sources state that most plants that where operational are currently not working due to lack of maintenance or lack of the fuel needed to operate them. Maintenance was not granted to neither of the 26 companies. Sources claim that at least two companies offered them and where denied. Derwick made a training degree at the USB and even tried to build a center to service turbines in Venezuela that is apparently not finished due to lack of any maintenance contracts to them or any other firms. This may also be useful to you: https://notinewsmiami.com/2019/03/12/odebrecht-y-duro-felguera-las-principales-empresas-responsables-del-desfalco-energetico-en-venezuela/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guzperez (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are incorrect; I did not add that information. You should put these sources on the talk page of the article there; article content is typically discussed on article talk pages. By putting them here, they risk being lost in the shuffle, and the person who did add that content-- or others who might help update the article-- are unlikely to see them. If no one else gets to this, I will try to look in over the next few days, but other than removing the BLP vios that were bound to occur after the blackout, I don't have a huge interest in his article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made adjustments to the article, noting that neither the sources given above, nor those that were in the article, are high quality; I tend to cite to sources like The Wall Street Journal. Do you have other suggestions, ? If so, please provide reliable sources, as I am unlikely to add text based on the kinds of sources given above. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help Sandy Georgia. I don't have time today, but I will try to send you something this week. --Guzperez (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Scanned copy of article in magazine Portafolio de Inversiones: https://www.slideshare.net/DerwickAssociatesCorp/portafolio-kawasaki-article-1?qid=431abb6b-fe6c-45e1-a40e-15b6b47cef5f&v=qf1&b=&from_search=3 Talks about previous experience of Betancourt in BGB and Kawasaki. --Guzperez (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That was in the article before. If this information is not available anywhere else (as in, someone can find it in a library), it is probably UNDUE.  It looks like an obscure regional magazine, although not clear what it actually is ... ??  I am also uncomfortable with the idea that Wikipedia can say something meets WP:V because Derwick Associates provided a scanned copy-- issues with third-party, independent, etc on verification.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is described as an important reference at the Venezuelan national level for economy here: https://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n101431.html but I could not find an online version and I have no idea if it is archived in any library. About the other issues I am not sure if it is OK or not, but I find it very hard to believe that they could falsify it because any change could be easily checked at least by the publication itself. If that one is not OK, I could not find any other.--Guzperez (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 allegations of co-conspirator role
I made an edit last year that noted that the Washington Post and the Miami Herald reported that Betancourt Lopez was an unindicted co-conspirator in a US criminal case. The reversion claimed that my edit ran afoul of WP:BLPCRIM.

As anyone can see, I'm not a very active Wikipedia editor, but it's my understanding that there are at least two questions we must answer to come to consensus: first, is Betancourt Lopez a public figure (per WP:PUBLICFIGURE)? If he is, that militates in favor of inclusion of these allegations; if not, that militates against. I believe that he is, based on the "Eminence" prong of WP:LOWPROFILE and his role in numerous businesses, including one of Venezuela's largest EPC businesses.

The second issue, once we settle the first, is should these reports be included? The reversion to my edit noted that several of the sources for the Herald and Post articles were anonymous, but I don't think that's a reason not to include them. Wikipedia articles generally report both sides of a controversy. If Lopez Betancourt still hasn't been charged or found liable of anything in a court, that would also bear mention. J1.grammar natz (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That is cristal-clear. Please don't say that The information is also inaccurate when the § added reuses the words of the source!
 * Hi.
 * There are several secondary sources of quality about this: Miamy Herald + Washington Post + Le Monde (which goes further by tracing money from Alejandro Betancourt in Europe during OpenLux investigations) or Reuters.
 * How the journalists get their information is no concern for us: Miamy Herald, Washington Post, Le Monde and Reuters are reliable secondary sources, not obscure low quality blogs, and if they think its relevant to publish this information, it is not up to us, WP editors, to withdraw them arbitrarily.
 * Please note I used (special:diff/1168778778) "allegated" in the text so it respects WP:BLPCRIME.
 * If you think the current text "misrepresents the sources", edit it instead of reverting.
 * Somehow, the en-wp article about Betancourt is watered down.
 * Regards, —  Ju le s*   talk 18:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello The information you added is both inaccurate and inappropriate for this encyclopedic biography of a living person. It is inaccurate because neither of the reliable sources asserted the information or even claimed its veracity. The Miami Herald clearly stated that the claim was made by anonymous sources and the other sources simply cited the claims posted by the Herald clearly stating that was the source used. The information is also inaccurate because it does not clarify that "Conspirator 2" is just an alias used by the court to protect the identity of the person it refers to. The sources claim that the person behind that alias received a large sum of money from the loan in question but also clarifies that there is no evidence that person had knowledge of the illicit PDVSA loan scheme or that it was aware of the source of the laundered money that person allegedly received. Conspiring means secretly planing to commit an licit act. The actions as described by the person whose identity is protected by that alias would not fit that definition.
 * The information is also inappropriate. Using "alleged" is not enough to meet WP:BLPCRIME. But also, please keep in mind that we are trying to build an encyclopedic article about a living person. Please remember that according to WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". These articles are more than 2.5 years old and there have been no recent new information published since to corroborate it or to establish its enduring notability.
 * Per WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP"
 * Finally, WP:BLPGOSSIP clearly states that we should avoid using sources "that attribute material to anonymous sources". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply,.
 * You can extand the text if you want to explain in detail why he is cited by the Miami Herald. I have nothing against it.
 * Conspiring means secretly planing to commit an licit act. The actions as described by the person whose identity is protected by that alias would not fit that definition. That is your opinion, be careful of No original research. The Miami Herald, on the contrary, says: "Betancourt, 40, remains an unnamed co-conspirator in a $1.2 billion money-laundering indictment filed about three years ago in Miami."
 * That several reliable sources reuse the information and links it to information about money trails in Europe (see Le Monde 2021, or even Gotham City from Swiss in 2020 and again in 2023!) is enough to show that this is not a buzz: it did have an impact on Alejandro Betancourt and it is relevant for an encyclopedic biography."Under investigation for five years, Betancourt has studiously avoided the U.S. banking system and real estate market and invested the vast majority of his wealth in shell companies set up in Spain, Switzerland and — now, it turns out — Luxembourg, which has grown into a preferred haven for rich people seeking secrecy and tax benefits."

- The Miami Herald

—  Ju le s*   talk 11:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:BLPGOSSIP is not relevant: it's not a gossip in a bad quality source, it's an information published in quality sources. Investigations journalists often use sources whose anonymity they preserve.
 * I propose the following content, that you are free to improve:
 * "In 2019, the Miami Herald and The Washington Post reported that Betancourt was an unnamed and unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged money-laundering scheme for which he would have received $28 million.[refs here]"
 * Hello As I explained in my previous message, based on our policies, the information is still both inaccurate and inappropriate so extending the text would not make any sense. Yes, the references are from RS newspapers, but again, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion".
 * Please note that No original research applies to the content in the articles but it does not to limit us on the análisis of the sources to determine if they merit inclusion. In this case the source seems to just be using the alias in that sentence as it conflicts with the description made further down the text where it explains that there is no evidence that the person had "knowledge of the illicit PDVSA loan scheme. Nor does it provide proof, such as a bank record or wire transfer, showing he was aware of the source of the laundered money he allegedly received". This clearly contradicts the dictionary definition of the word conspire and backs my statement about it being an alias to protect the identity of the subject. The proposed text includes the wrong attribution and by cherry picking actually twists what the article says.
 * The fact remains that the source quoted by others is the Miami Herald and that article clearly states that it is not the Herald but the anonymous sources making the claim. In all these years since the article was published no new information has surfaced to be able to verify the claim made by those anonymous sources, so there is no reason to add it back now.
 * Besides the other reasons I gave in my previous message that you did not address, please review WP:BLPGOSSIP again. When it states that we should avoid using sources "that attribute material to anonymous sources" it does not say that it is OK to use material attributed to anonymous sources if it is published by the Miami Herald or the Washington post. Our policy states that in BLPs material attributed to anonymous sources should be avoided, (regardless of where it is published or which additional sources echo it).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * En-wp is not my home wiki (see my meta account) and it is clear that either en-wp rules and uses are different from fr-wp rules and uses if "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." (WP:BLPGOSSIP) forbid the use of several reliable sources laying on sources whose names are not disclosed by journalists, either it's your own interpretation of rules.
 * Either way, I don't have ressources (not my native language, not enough time, not a deep knowledge of en-wp rules and uses) to continue this talk, but be aware that I consider this article as deeply watered down, close to an ad: there are a lot of content poorly sourced about the subject companies and his projects ("In January 2014, the business section of the Spanish daily ABC published an interview in which Alejandro Betancourt explained his strategy of turning Derwick into a major technology provider for Latin America."), but information by investigative journalists don't find their way in the article.
 * Regards, —  Ju le s*   talk 20:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * P.-S.: what you write is wrong. The Miami Herald also says explicitly: "Although Betancourt is not identified by name in the federal case filed in Miami, several sources familiar with the widening investigation say that he is “Conspirator 2” among the dozen unnamed Venezuelan conspirators and officials listed in a criminal complaint that details the alleged international racket."

—  Ju le s*   talk 10:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And the fact there is no evidence does not mean he's not suspected to be a conspirator, but explains why he was not indicted. See this other Miami Herald paper:
 * "However, Betancourt has not been indicted like Convit and nine others in the money flight case. That’s because of a lack of evidence that he knew the money given to him by his cousin was from the sham loan with PDVSA and was later washed through a highly profitable government currency exchange, according to sources familiar with the federal investigation."
 * Thank you for your understanding. Besides BLPCRIME and NOTNEWS, the issue with BLPGOSSIP is not whether the publisher reveals or not its sources, the issue is that attribution was explicitly given to anonymous sources and that this is a BLP.
 * What you just posted is a subset of what was reported in the original article and lists just one of the reasons. In the original article it stated that there was lack of evidence of him knowing the illegal source of the funds or any knowledge of the actual scheme. So the news in a nutshell is that according to Anonymous sources Betancourt is the person behind an alias that received money generated from the alleged ilegal loan, but that there is no evidence of his involvement or knowledge that money was from an ilegal source. Don't you agree with me that "Conspirator 2" is obliviously an alias to protect the identity of a person, whether it actually is the subject or somebody else, and not necessarily a description of the actions attributed to that person?
 * I do agree with you that the paragraph sourced by ABC you mentioned does not belong in the article, so I have removed it. In case it's added back I'll explain my reasons and try to find a consensus. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)