Talk:Félix Rodríguez (soldier)

Biography of Living Persons Standards
I have blanked out several portions of this article and the comments because they do not follow the Wikipedia official standard for Biographies of living persons. If you think a section was improperly blanked, it was probably because it did not have a high-quality verifiable source listed.

--Burzum 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Biased
This article is clearly biased. I attempted to make changes, but then realized I am not aware of the standards, etc. as of yet so I erased my changes. This article needs substantial editing to remove political bias.


 * You have failed to explain the bias. I have removed the bias template--Burzum 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A blank declaration of bias is not convincing, you should at least mention your points of conflict and then provide some documentation. El Jigüey 1-3-06

Note: It is often alleged that Rodriguez' father and two brothers were executed by the Castro regime soon after it came to power. I'm not disputing whether it did or didn't, I'm simply seeking some source for this claim. Rodriguez says nothing about it in his book. Can anybody help with this?


 * I'm in favor of keeping it so wildly biased, as it serves as a good reminder to anyone reading it that they need to confirm anything they read here with a more trustworthy source. I had started to believe some of what I was reading until I realized how it was so comical that I remembered I should check elsewhere to see what was true and what was typical Wikipedia BS. --71.203.125.108 (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

TDC: Please do not revert or this will quickly go to Admin
TDC: welcome to the scholarly study of US relations with Latin America. Your Wikipedia web-page clearly states your political biases: you are a self-proclaimed "defender of capitalism against the 'Neo-Coms' ('neo-Communists')." "William Blum, Howard Zinn, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, and [Noam] Chomsky sound exactly like Osama bin Laden." "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." Your first words on your page are: "Wise words to bear in mind before picking a fight with The TDC'ster." You are welcome to these opinions. Wikipedia articles, however, require a NPOV. You are welcome to offer countervailing facts and sources to those on an existing page. You are are not welcome, however, to randomly delete well-documented and highly relevant material that happens to run against your views. You have done this repeatedly, and a complaint will soon be lodged against you. I suggest you work with Wikipedia guidelines, which will help create more informative and balanced web pages. Your contributions are welcome! But please do not delete the hard work of others just because you disagree with them politically. Stick to adding factual material and sources. 208.59.121.177 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * TDC: please stop the Vandalism. It can be hard when you start a Wikipedia page and future revisions take it in a direction you did not intend.  But consider this part of the joy and beauty of learning on Wikipedia, exploring the unknown, making new bridges in understanding.


 * The information you are adding does not comply with WP:V, please read the policy and comply. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a non sequiter, and does not address the concerns raised. Additionally, it is clear from your Talk page that you deliberately provoke conflicts rather than trying to resolve differences and make a better article.  *shrug*  That's too bad.  I've posted as a warning of potential WP:VAND on your Talk page. 141.161.48.111 06:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO: please see Talk on TDC, and please engage in Discussion
(The following is cut-and-pasted from Barry Seal for ease of reference, as the same issues/people/time apply.) MONGO: Agreed it is vital to stick to the facts and NPOV. Article reverted, per ongoing conflict and attempts at discussion with TDC. MONGO, you understand your responsibilities as an Admin and you understand that Blanking Vandalism is not constructive. You also understand that not every single sentence or fact in an encyclopedia must be sourced, and that a pattern of mis-using Wiki guidelines (including NPOV, V, CITE, etc.) as a veiled attempt at partisanship or ideology is itself unacceptable behavior. Please identify which facts, if any, you believe need citations with the Fact template. Please also identify any particular examples of alleged "POV" and they will be fixed. The vast majority if not all of what you removed is sourced and NPOV. The fact that much was created by anons is irrelevant. Your blind support for TDC (three times now) calls into question your neutrality as an Admin, especially on topics outside your areas of expertise (natural parks, etc.).
 * Reference for other Admins: for background, please see User talk:TDC, and discussion above and on Talk:Barry Seal. Please note that this week TDC has already violated the terms of his parole for similar behavior.  Please also note that twice before TDC has turned to Admin MONGO after engaging in revert wars and other unWikipedian behavior (on "Depleted uranium" and "What's the matter"/"Protect"), and (as far as I can tell) both times MONGO has been overruled.

Hey what's going on with this article?
Nobody should be adding anything that is not sourced, or deleting anything that is properly sourced. Both bad edits occurred today. The last revision subtracted something that was not sourced and added something not sourced. This is a recipe for disaster, misinformation, propaganda, and violations of all sorts of Wikipedia polcies. Will the person who added the stuff about the 2004 US presidential election either source it or delete it. If it is not verifiable, it does not belong here. Will the person who deleted sourced information (along with a whole lot of other nonsourced stuff) please pay closer attention. Thanks to all. Skywriter 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record-- http://www.nndb.com/people/677/000107356/ -- is not an authoritative source. It is edited by users, same as Wikipedia. Anyone can upload anything. Find an acceptable source or delete this entry. Thanks. Skywriter 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ is also an unacceptable source because, like frontpagemagazine.com, it is obviously partisan. A link to the Senate Committee hearings themselves, or at the NSArchive is acceptable, and would enhance credibility. Skywriter 22:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Skywriter: for background on TDC and MONGO, see Talk above, and User talk:TDC (this section), and Talk:Barry Seal.  As you note, MONGO (despite recently being made an Admin) is now engaging in ideologically-based selective blanking, thereby violating his neutrality and abusing his powers.  At least he is now using {citation needed} templates, which is a step forward.  But this page needs to be redone back to your helpful edits (thank you!) as of 19:09 tonight, and then merged with MONGO's most recent revisions.  This will take time.  Of course you're right about the John Kerry section -- this is hardly the most notable aspect of Felix Rodriguez' colorful life! *LOL*  And that section is full of unsourced POV.  Notice that TDC put it there in May 2004, during Kerry's campaign.  I have allowed it to remain so far, and not complained about it's flagrant violation of NPOV, in the interest of compromise and moving this page forward.  However, the fact that TDC and MONGO have left it unchallenged points to their right-wing ideological bias.  (TDC is is proud of this, as noted in Talk above).  Again, please note that it will take time to undue the damage MONGO has wrought on this page.  I'm curious if other Wiki-users have experienced similar troubles with MONGO. 208.59.121.177 03:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You will have troubles with me if you don't refrain from personal attacks. I think I have already covered this issue with you elsewhere, haven't I? I am not a recent admin...I have been an admin for well over six months. Your edits appear to utilize many poor sources that are not unbiased and in fact, a few of them are nothing more than blogs, really.--MONGO 04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "MONGO": please be civil -- "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." I'm sure you mean well, but statements beginning with "You will have trouble with me if..." come across as threatening and are unbecoming to any Wiki user, let alone an Admin.  I've read the links on TDC's pattern of behavior and can see what 208.59.121.177 means about POV; this is not a "personal attack," it is about neutrality.  Frankly, the record speaks to his/her concerns.
 * In the latest "Edit summary" you unnecessarily use the command verb form -- "stop removing the bracket" ("please leave bracket" would be more than sufficient, or even say nothing, don't we have bigger fish to fry?) Of course there should be a closing bracket, I just missed it (why else would you think I'd leave the open-bracket?).  As I noted in my "Edit summary", we had an editing conflict as I had been working on the Bush section for some time:  " 'Editing Conflict' -- I tried to catch and add all M[ONGO]'s changes, hopefully did."  In merging that section I tried to include your changes, but evidently I missed this one closing-bracket.  Sorry about that!  Six months may seem long on Wiki, but to those with white hair, who lived through the events described on this page, it is very recent indeed. 68.50.13.23 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How many different IP"s are you going to use to edit here?...that is my point...respected users create an username and use only that username and log in each and everytime they edit. Continued acclaim that TDC or myself are biased because we have a content dispute with you is incivil. The same could be said in reverse, however, I have not done so. I may very well feel (and correctly at that) that your edits are biased...in fact, that feeling would not be without merit. With that said, you probably have fewer years on me than you may think, so you know you're not in communication with either an amateur or some teenager, not that age has anything to do with educated knowledge of this, which can be achieved by anyone with a mature mind. I'll be looking over your references, but also any further commentary about bias or wide eyed speculations about others additions, reverts being vandalism or any other commentary in regards to myself or others that see your edits as circumspect. You'll gain favor in my eyes and the community if you use only one newly created username when editing.--MONGO 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of South Vietnam?????
Isn't this the provisional Communist government set up by the North Vietnamese after the defeat of the South??? Why would they give Rodriguez medals??? I think it should be The Republic of Vietnam which is more commonly known as South Vietnam. I tried to edit this but it is continually reverted back. Does anyone have a source????
 * My guess is this got caught up in broader editing discussions, and was accidentally deleted by mistake. I don't know this for sure; if I did so then I offer my apologies.  I have changed it per your suggestion, to the following: The Republic of (south) Vietnam.  I inserted the parenthetical "(South)" just in case someone intentionally put it there.  I have no opinion or insight on this matter.  Please feel free to remove the "(South)" if it would be more clear and accurate.  Thank you for your contributions, and again sorry that this edit got changed without discussion.  68.50.13.23 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, after reading the South Vietnam page, I see that it is much more clear to simply state: by the South Vietnamese government, so I did that. Please revise if you like!

MONGO edits
MONGO's goal seems to be to remove all links from the article to prevent readers from seeing anything but MONGO's biased point of view. MONGO removed the link to the Cuban Revolution and inserted The 26th of July Movement (a non-existent article). MONGO removed the reference to Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista and inserted Batista, a link which forces the reader to choose between six different "Batista" articles. Another obvious attempt to confuse readers. Other examples: changed neutral "government" to loaded "regime", changed "South Vietnam" (correct reference) to "Republic of South Vietnam" (not the government referred to in the article), and removed a large number of supporting references and work completed by other individuals. These instances, on top of the numerous other points of bias added by MONGO and removal of relevent information left me no choice but to revert all edits by MONGO to the previous version. --Nc11

Investigation by John Kerry
Nothing about John Kerry's witch hunt on Felix? Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.10.61 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-25t15:30:13z


 * Sorry to bug you when you are working on other things. The article currently states: "During one session Kerry accused him of soliciting a $10 million donation from a Colombian cocaine cartel. Kerry later apologized to Rodríguez." It is cited to this piece in the August 7, 2013 issue of National Review by Jay Nordlinger. Nordlinger writes:
 * But a month later, there was an eye-popping story in the Miami Herald: A convicted money launderer for the Medellín cartel had accused Rodriguez of soliciting drug money for the Contras. This was a leak supplied by “unnamed congressional sources.” And who might they be? It was no mystery. In the Senate, John Kerry was chairing a subcommittee known to one and all as the “Kerry Committee.” He was keen to establish a link between the Contras and drug-running. He was especially keen to link the vice president, George Bush, to any such drug-running. Rodriguez had a tie to Bush, because the vice president’s national-security adviser was Donald Gregg, who had been Rodriguez’s superior in Vietnam. Rodriguez wanted to testify before Kerry’s committee in an open hearing, so he could clear his name. But Kerry insisted on a closed hearing.
 * Toward the end of that hearing, Rodriguez said to Kerry, “Senator, this has been the hardest testimony I ever gave in my life.” Kerry asked why. “Because,” said Rodriguez, “it is extremely difficult to have to answer questions from someone you do not respect, and I do not respect you and what you are doing here.” The senator was not pleased. “Boy, did he blow his top,” Rodriguez says. But after almost a year — and considerable Republican pressure — Kerry apologized to Rodriguez and acknowledged that the money launderer’s accusation was false. Fine, says Rodriguez. But if you Google his name, you will find plenty of references to the Medellín drug cartel. The endurance, the permanence, of the 1987 lie rankles Rodriguez.
 * The July 14, 1988 hearing in which Rodriguez appears can be found here. I see Kerry investigating Ramon Milian Rodriguez's allegations, but I don't see an accusation. I also don't see the exchange that the Nation Review article mentions, nor can I find a public apology from Kerry anywhere. Do you happen to have more information about this? Thanks! - Location (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy to help out, but I don't know much about this. The KC hearing transcripts available in 4 volumes at Hathitrust are all from open hearings. The Kerry Committee (KC) also held a number of closed hearings; these are the 'secret' hearings. These hearing transcripts were never published, as far as I know. Felix Rodriguez (R) appeared in an open hearing before the KC on July 14, 1988. Call this his testimony. It appears in vol. 4. Vol. 4 appendix also has a written statement from Rodriguez. As for Ramon Milián Rodriguez, Milián is his apellido paterno (Ramon Milian-Rodriguez); call him M. M also appeared in an open hearing on April 8, 1988; this is in vol. 3 of the hearings at Hathitrust.


 * Both R & M also appeared in closed hearings, I'm unsure of all the details. M. appeared at a closed hearing on 6/25/87 (according to the KC report p. 61), at which he claimed to have paid 10 million through R. for the Contras; this testimony was not released, but it was very soon leaked to the press. R's statement says the Miami Herald article, by Royce Knut, appeared 6/29/87, and he received a subpoena from the KC on 6/30. (I haven't seen the MH article, but the WaPo ran an article on the same subject 6/30). R appeared before KC 8/6/87 (at the beginning of R's testimony, Sen. McConnell accidentally says R appeared 6/6, but is corrected by R.). R. wanted an open hearing but KC counsel Jack Blum refused. Even so, MH carried a story on 8/12 that R. had denied the charges.


 * R. is hot against Kerry for the release of M's June 87 testimony and its not hard to see why; it hit the papers before R. even got a subpoena. Kerry says the Committee didn't release M's testimony, but the WaPo story gives details of it and says that the details were confirmed by a 'panel source'; WaPo also says M's general claim was confirmed by two more panel sources! Note that the Kerry report concludes with an angry accusation that various Committee details were leaked by nefarious persons for illicit purposes; this incident is not mentioned there.


 * As discussed in R's testimony, the DOJ didn't think M. was credible (see also Schlesinger affidavit in the appendix). There is a furious back and forth between R. and K. during this testimony, most of it Iran-Contra details utterly unrelated to drugs. I don't see any statement from Rodriguez such as he claims to have made in the Nordlinger article. Maybe that was in a different hearing. Is there an apology from K in R's vol 4 testimony. ? Well, K. does say "I apologize" once (p. 355), but I don't think that it was for believing M. or slandering R.


 * Did Kerry acknowledge that M's testimony was false? The KC Report, published April 1989, describes how M. failed a polygraph test on his claim that he gave bucks to R (pp 61-62). The test was in June 1988, after M's open appearance in front of the KC, but before R's July appearance. It is not mentioned in R's appearance, as far as I can tell. The April 1989 Report comments "the Chairman concluded that [M's] version of the meeting with [R] and his subsequent relationship with Felix in providing drug money for the Contras was not truthful." It also adds that "During Felix Rodriguez' public testimony before the Subcommittee on July 14, 1988, Senator Kerry stated that he did not believe Ramon Milian Rodriguez' version of the meeting was truthful." (62) I haven't found that part, but if the Report says so, it must have happened. Perhaps that was as much an apology as Kerry was capable of. Read pp 61-62 to get all the details. K does not renounce all faith in M. Rgr09 (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Rgr09 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is all very helpful, especially if we were to resurrect that project outlining various allegations/conspiracy theories of US government involvement in drug running. I don't think I had anything about this in there.
 * Showing that little has changed over time, this entire issue seethes with politic partisanship. It does seem that Kerry really was hell bent on tying Bush to some nefarious actions, but the conservatives' presentation of all of this needs to be examined carefully, too. For example, Nordlinger's August 2013 article seems to indicate by the use of direct quotes that he had a transcript of Rodriguez's closed door hearings; however, he wrote the following in in the May 17, 2004 issue (republished in the December 15, 2012 issue) of National Review:
 * There followed an extraordinary exchange — again, according to Rodriguez.
 * I said, “Senator, this has been the hardest testimony I ever gave in my life.”
 * He looked up, glasses perched on his nose. “Why?”
 * “Because, sir, it is extremely difficult to have to answer questions from someone you do not respect.” . . .
 * I told him outright, “Senator, my name was leaked by your committee as being involved with drugs. I take that very seriously because it affects my family, my reputation, and my friends.”
 * Kerry looked at me sternly and said, “You’re making a very serious accusation, because this committee doesn’t leak.”
 * “Senator, leaked or not it was in every goddamned newspaper that, at one of your closed committee hearings, Ramón Milian Rodríguez said I solicited money. That is a damned lie.”
 * Although I have no reason to doubt that the exchange happened that way, it is clearly Rodriguez's account of what was specifically said. Nordlinger did not make that clear in the 2013 article that is cited in this article.
 * By the way, just in case we need more evidence that John Simkin's Spartacus Educational is a completely unreliable source of information, I found this 2005 discussion initiated by Simkin putting it out there that a closer look needs to be given to Felix Rodriguez as a conspirator in the assassination of JFK. Sheesh! No wonder Rodriguez is pissed that M's allegations still follow him. Thanks again! - Location (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I changed the article to state "...Rodríguez was questioned by Kerry about allegations of soliciting a $10 million donation from a Colombian cocaine cartel." It looks like JamesMLane may have addressed this 15 years ago (!!!!!) in Talk:John Kerry/Archive 16.
 * Rodriguez's exchanges with Kerry in the open door hearing do seem quite contentious. The Kerry Committee report states that Raoul Diaz refused to respond to a subpoena (p. 61), but in the hearings Rodriguez implied that Diaz had not even been served with it (pp. 330-331). In the last three pages (pp. 371-373), Rodriguez refuses to answer what the context was of a request for $50,000 from Oliver North, insisting it is not relevant. Any thoughts on what that was about? - Location (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 15 years. Crap, you make me feel old.


 * Anyway, the current version says that the charge was "eventually shown to be false". The use of the passive voice puts Kerry in a false light by omitting his role in the showing.  As I understand it from re-reading my ancient comment, R. Rodriguez testified under oath and made an accusation against F. Rodriguez; the latter denied it; Kerry, faced with these conflicting statements, arranged for the accuser to take a lie-detector test; the accuser flunked it; then, when F. Rodriguez testified before Kerry's committee, Kerry stated that he did not believe the accusation.  Apparently there was no occasion on which Kerry endorsed the accusation.  If Kerry is to be mentioned at all here, then there needs to be more elaboration of his role.  The current version leaves the reader with the impression that Kerry pressed a false accusation but someone else came along and refuted Kerry's smear -- that impression is false. JamesMLane t c 18:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Time flies when you're having fun! (My first edit was shortly before that in April 2005 under a different account that is no longer used.)
 * I think your understanding of the issue reflect what the Kerry Committee report states on pages 61 and 62, and the edit I made earlier today was an attempt to clarify that it was not Kerry who was accusing Rodriguez. I am sure that there are people that think Kerry had an axe to grind, including Felix Rodriguez (for reasons stated in Rrg09's post above), but sourcing for those opinions would need to be done carefully and with attribution, and I'm not sure what would even belong here. I don't recall what was the impetus for the Kerry Committee; maybe Avirgan and Honey. Rrg09 might have more on that. - Location (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your edit is an improvement. It does clarify that Kerry was not accusing Rodriguez.  There remains, however, the misleadingly one-sided presentation of Kerry's role: He's described as asking about the accusation, but there's nothing about how it was refuted by him, not by some unnamed paladin of the truth who lurks behind the passive voice.  Here's the current text, followed by my suggested rewrite.


 * Current text: During the 2004 US Presidential election, Rodríguez was highly critical of Democratic candidate John Kerry, due in part to their previous meeting at a Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Narcotics hearing in 1987 in which Rodríguez was questioned by Kerry about allegations of soliciting a $10 million donation from a Colombian cocaine cartel. The story, eventually shown to be false, had come from Ramón Milian Rodríguez, a convicted money launderer from Colombia. Rodríguez referred to Kerry as "a liar and self-promoter" and said he "should not be President."


 * Proposed revision:During the 2004 US Presidential election, Rodríguez was highly critical of Democratic candidate John Kerry, due in part to their previous meeting at a Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Narcotics hearing in 1987 in which Rodríguez was questioned by Kerry about allegations of soliciting a $10 million donation from a Colombian cocaine cartel. The story had come from Ramón Milian Rodríguez, a convicted money launderer from Colombia. Kerry arranged for Ramón Milian Rodríguez to take a polygraph test, which he failed. Thereafter, when Félix Rodríguez testified before the subcommittee, Kerry stated that he did not believe the accusation.  Nevertheless, Félix Rodríguez referred to Kerry as "a liar and self-promoter" and said he "should not be President."


 * There should be some citations plugged in, but first I want to see if people think the substance is accurate. JamesMLane t c 07:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the edit. Having spent the time on reading this material, I might as well continue. The edit as it stands is basically a POV defense of Kerry cast in the form of an attack on Rodriguez. Please provide whatever citations you think can support it, but bear this objection in mind. Let me help you out a bit with the problems here. Why did Kerry call M-R, a convicted drug trafficker and money launderer, to testify in the first place? Did he consult the prosecutors in M-R's case? I think not, based on their later testimony. What was Kerry's response to the leaking of what turned out to be perjured testimony? Why was the polygraph done a year after M's original appearance? I will not be on-site again for a few days, but I will return to this when I get back. Rgr09 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think my edit "was questioned by Kerry about allegations of soliciting a $10 million donation" is better than "Kerry accused him of soliciting a $10 million donation" because it is not clear to me with the sources given that Kerry was on a witchhunt. (Rgr09 alluded to the possibility of more information on this, and this LA Times book review states: "He also was accused by sources close to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) of soliciting drug money for the Contras--accusations the author denies and Kerry himself eventually repudiated.") Clearly Rodriguez and those on the right side of the aisle think he was treated unfairly and accused of this for political reasons, and those views of the allegations could be expressed with in-text attribution. In general, I do think JamesMLane's proposed additions are good. Regarding: "Nevertheless, Félix Rodríguez referred to Kerry as 'a liar and self-promoter' and said he 'should not be President.'" I think the use of "nevertheless" in this context presents Rodriguez of irrationally holding a grudge against Kerry. There are a lot of interviews with Rodriguez (e.g. ), as well as his own book, in which he explains why he holds such contempt for Kerry; however, I don't think we need an entire section discussing that ill will. - Location (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Autheticity of Che/Rodríguez photo.
OTRS ticket 2008061710028799 disputes the claim that the photo is fake. Source(s) readable by article readers should soon be available. If no such reliable and accessable source(s) are provided within the next few weeks, feel free to remove the dispute notice. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-05t23:21z

Schnappschuss mit Che (documentary)
Currently the article utilizes the 2007 German documentary Schnappschuss mit Che to allege that the photo of Rodriguez and Che standing next to each other is fake (created). I however have not seen the film and thus can not speak on the credibility or evidence cited. Does anyone know where a review of this film can be located or perhaps the film itself (hopefully with sub-titles)? Moreover, User:Die4Dixie, has objected to inclusion or mention of the film - declaring it a WP:Fringe theory. However, I am not sure of the overall basis or evidence for the films supposed claim, nor what information Dixie is utilizing in his assessment. Red thoreau (talk)RT 00:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is credible, then third party sources will have widely reported it. Since this is a BLP, it should be removed until it is proven not to be a fringe theory.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The main arguments are:

''Also appearing in the documentary is helicopter pilot Jaime Nino de Guzman, who transported Rodriguez to the small town of La Higuera in the Bolivian sierra, and Dino Brugioni, one of the foremost US photography experts, who expresses his conviction on camera that the legendary image was altered.

The chopper pilot's statement is crucial as he is confirmed as being the one who more than 40 years ago took the photo that has appeared in numerous history books since then.

"That photo was never taken," Nino de Guzman says categorically, however, adding immediately thereafter that the image is a falsification and that during the meeting between Che and Rodriguez, Guevara spat in the face of his captor and completely refused to speak with him.

''His statement contradicts the version of the encounter that, up until now, Rodriguez had offered. He has said that he held a conversation on relatively friendly terms with Guevara, whose life he tried to save, but in the end he was not able to prevent his execution by the Bolivian soldiers who - as had been repeated over and over since that time - wanted to avoid an international trial.''

The possible faking of the image allegedly taken on Oct 9, 1967, is certified also by Brugioni, who says that the sunlight illuminating Che and the Bolivian soldiers is different and emanates from a different angle than the light illuminating Rodriguez.

The expert also emphasises that Che's right arm seems to have been "shortened" just at the point where it touches Rodriguez's body, as if the image of the latter could have been added later to the snapshot.

Quotes from: Documentary alleges last photo of Che is fake To my mind everybody can see on the photo that the sunlight illuminating Che and the Bolivian soldiers is different and emanates from a different angle than the light illuminating Rodriguez and that Che's right arm seems to have been "shortened" just at the point where it touches Rodriguez's body. Plausible or not? Does anybody knows an explanation for these inconsistencies Der Barbar (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have forensic proof from experts, reported by third party sources, we will entertain them. This is a fringe theory, and has no part in this or the caption. Insert non-formatted text here
 * Dino Brugioni, one of the foremost US photography experts expresses his conviction on camera that the legendary image was altered.
 * You have asked, „Does anyone know where a review of this film can be located or perhaps the film itself“? You can view the company contact information for the film „A Snapshot with Che“ (Award: 2009 Gold Medal National/International Affairs at The New York Festivals) here: A Snapshot with Che -- Der Barbar (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am German and just watched this documentation which can be found on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRX_i1HBKHY

Rodríguez says he asked Che for permission to shoot the picture and received the permission.

However, an expert figures out that the photo is undoubtedly a montage. It is evident that two pictures were put together, he explains. Sunlight and shade in the faces do not at all match. Witnesses confirm that this photo was not taken. Instead, they say, Che Guevara spit into Rodríguez’ face and refused to speak to Rodríguez. There was no dialogue among them. Rodríguez, witnesses say, wore another uniform the day he was on the site with Guevara.

In the film the last days, the capturing and killing of Che are described. As well as the friendship between Rodríguez and Dariel Alarcón Ramírez (“Benigno”) which developed after Alarcón defected from Cuba and took exile in Paris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.202.91.5 (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Specious content
I have read completely the source cited to say that Che was in the "custody" of Félix. The citated material does not substantiate this and has been removed per WP:BLP and other policies. Please do not reinsert this.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Die4Dixie, (although I did not insert the wording you object to) I believe "custody" might be a matter of semantics. According to the CIA debriefing of Félix Rodríguez on June 3, 1975 - pg 4 states that Rodríguez was acting in the capacity as the "highest ranking Bolivian officer" on the scene where Che was being held captive, and Rodríguez admits to pg 5 ultimately passing on the final execution order to the man who killed Guevara. I am not sure why you particularly object to the phraseology - but yes agree with you in part that the wording of "custody" is not preferable to other alternatives.  Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let´s stick to what the source says if we are claiming to quote it. It is dishonest to say a source says something it doesn´t, and sourcs shouldn´t be used falsely to insert OR. I am glad that we agree on this issue, and am gratified that you took the time to read it too.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Internal links to National Security Archive etc.
I added these internal links after going to the external links listed here and in related articles. I don't want to disrupt the current discussion, so if my edits are incorrect, please revert or correct. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks sound to me. Thank you. No one owns it, annd any help improving it is always appreciated.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dictator/president
Why the insistence on referring to Trujillo as "president" rather than "dictator"? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.serendipity.li/cia/operation_phoenix.htm
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 16:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal life
Most historical figures or famous people have some blurb about their personal life. Has no one been interested in adding this, or is it specifically left out? I came here after reading this article about Mexican cartels https://medium.com/matter/blood-on-the-corn-part-ii-b4f447d70a8c part of which describes the relationship between the cartels and the contras and includes references to Rodríguez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slippyshoe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Go for it. - Location (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hector Berrellez and Leyenda
I don't want to edit anything on this until I find better sources or have a better idea of what's going on, but there has been tons of articles popping up about Rodriquez's involvement with the murder in this case. LA Weekly just did a piece on it which can be read here. I was wondering why there wasn't anything in the talk page concerning at least the allegations. Can someone enlighten me? Craigstealsheep (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the link you provided, the allegation that Rodríguez murdered Kiki Camarena originates with an informant named René López Romero then reiterated by Hector Berrellez. I think this allegation needs to be reported on by something more substantial than the LA Weekly before its inclusion is considered. I will be interested in what you find. - Location (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I found a few more sources, but they're not the best. The story sounds like a movie and is really wild, but I guess if it sounds too much like a movie, it's probably made up. My question is that if these three guys made it all up, why? Why would they want to tarnish him? Here's a few more links I found. From Progreso Weeklywhich is translated from the Spanish newspaper El País and the Mexican magazine Proceso, and a story from Fox News that has details as well. Felix isn't named in the story, but they do say a "A Cuban, who worked as a CIA operative who helped run guns and drugs for the Contras," so it's not crazy to think who the mean. Of course, none of this is corroborated by any other sources besides the three people who claim it to be him. Just thought this should go on the talk page now to see if there's any further developments later. Craigstealsheep (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. By the way, I did see the Fox News article earlier. Be skeptical of anything claimed by Tosh Plumlee. - Location (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Félix Rodríguez (soldier). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brigada2506.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Félix Rodríguez (soldier). 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 tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/29/113445.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718102901/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/phoenix-scfr-19700217.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/phoenix-scfr-19700217.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) 15:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Some points
I don't get some aspects of this. First off, it talks about the extensive "ties" to George H. W. Bush during the Iran-Contra affair. Who denies there was any to begin with? I think even Felix has talked about his meetings with GHWB. This seems to be a lot of innuendo about something that doesn't come to a head.

And secondly, it brings up John Kerry's allegation on Felix without mentioning that Kerry eventually (privately) apologized for that. Those allegations came from a guy looking at 46 years prison time and who had flunked numerous polygraphs.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. That section needs a bit of a re-write. As you know, Rodríguez knew Gregg from Vietnam, then Gregg worked as National Security Advisor for GHWB. That's about it.
 * Kerry's allegations, I found an active link to replaced the dead link; however, better sourcing should be used as Newsmax is typically not considered a reliable source. -Location (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Félix Rodríguez (soldier). 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/20160114155314/http://www.parascope.com/articles/1296/bayofpigs.htm to http://www.parascope.com/articles/1296/bayofpigs.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211083706/http://mass-multi-media.com/CRV to http://mass-multi-media.com/CRV/

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) 05:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Iran-Contra section
The Iran-Contra section in this article was put together in 2006. It basically relies on the Final Report of Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra matters, the official record of the OIC's investigation. There is no problem with this of course, but there is a problem with the following claim that has sat in the article for 14 years:


 * Rodríguez also met and spoke repeatedly with Bush's advisor Gregg and his deputy (Col. Samuel J. Watson III). As one indicator of this connection, a single chapter in the Walsh Report titled "Donald P. Gregg" (Chapter 29) contains 329 references to Rodríguez.

All of this is an IP editor's opinion, with nothing else to back it up. The figure of 329 references is the editor's count, the claim that it is proof that Rodriguez met and spoke repeatedly with Gregg and Watson is the editor's claim. None of this belongs in the article, and I have removed it. If there is disagreement on this, please discuss here before reinstating. Rgr09 (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The last narc
Crap! The article was revised to include a reference to a NY Post story on the documentary The Last Narc. I removed the reference to the Post story in the article and originally planned to add a section on the documentary claims, but apparently it has been cancelled, possibly for claims it made about Rodriguez. Unless the documentary comes out, or there is a clearer explanation of why it was dropped, I don't think it belongs in the article. Rgr09 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was confused as to what the Last Narc was; apparently it was a documentary to be shown or streamed on Amazon in four parts. Comment above corrected based on this. Rgr09 (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All four parts of the documentary are definitely being streamed now, but it is not available in my location, so I am unsure what exactly is said about Rodriguez in the series. I have not put anything in the article on it yet, but I would suggest anything on it should come from an RS review, rather than random comments. Rgr09 (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A lot of the sources are cartel insiders (from what I have read). And that has had a tendency to blow up in the face of people who believe[d] them. (Witness 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' to name one.) A lot of these drug movies/docus play fast and loose with the truth.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Nick Schager at the Daily Beast has a review up. Unfortunately, Schager apparently doesn't know much about the Camarena case, or about drugs or Mexico either. He repeats the claim that Camarena "discovered" Rancho Búfalo. This is not true. He makes the wildly exaggerated claim that Camarena was "closing in on" the Cartel (no one even knew what Cara Quintero looked like); he says, channeling Berrellez, that de la Madrid was on the Guadalajara Cartel's payroll, and on and on. When it comes to Rodriguez's involvement, he gives no details whatsoever, except to say that the series makes the claim that "Rodriguez partially conducted Camarena’s interrogation and torture," and that this claim was based on "Berrellez and others’ testimony". What Rodriguez said and did is left unsaid in Schager's review. What Berrellez's testimony was is left unsaid in Schager's review. In short, the series can't go into the article based on this review.
 * What is needed is an overview of the series from someone who knows something, anything, about the case. Rodriguez has denied that he was in Mexico at any time in 1984 or 1985. Did Russell try to get comments from Rodriguez? (Schager doesn't tell us.) Apparently the series includes Phil Jordan, former EPIC director who is emphatically of the same opinion as Berrellez. DEA has publicly disassociated itself from some of the things Jordan and other former DEA agents (read Berrellez) have said. Does the series address this? Does the series include ANYONE else from the DEA besides Berrellez and Jordan? The claim has been made, apparently by some of these same people that there was a DEA official present at Camarena's torture as well. Is this addressed in the series? As far as I can tell, the series does not address the massive prosecution of the case at all. What do some of these prosecutors think of Berrellez and his informants? And so on. And so on. Rgr09 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I don't understand how people can so easily spout the "CIA was complicit in drug running to support the Contras" conspiracy theory without having any clue about the investigations of the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency Office of Inspector General, and United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. All of these articles where the conspiracists land need a summary sentence or two about those investigations and relevant sourcing. - Location (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we should pay attention also to the sources of the documentary itself, first of all the former DEA Héctor Berellez that led the investigation of Camarena's murder in operation Leyenda:


 * Hector Berrellez: Former D.E.A. Supervisor and Special Agent, thirty years experience in counter terrorism and narcotics enforcement. One of the most highest decorated Drug Enforcement Agent in the history of the bureau. He was recognized by the U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese for heroism. He received the Federal Bar Association Medal of Valor, the Federal Executive Board Chairman's Special Award. And is credited for his handling and solving of the kidnap, torture and murder of undercover DEA Agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena by drug traffickers in Guadalajara, Mexico in which Hector received the prestigious DEA Administrator's Award. He has a BS and BA from the University of Phoenix, AZ and a Doctorate degree in International Law from the University of Michoacan. He is considered an expert by the U.S. Government in terrorism, security protection and threat assessment. He has implemented anti-terrorist security measures for U.S. Embassies in Central and South America.


 * Phil Jordan: Former DEA Intelligence Director.


 * Mike Holm: DEA resident agent in charge in Guadalajara with Camarena.


 * Manny Medrano: Former Assistant US Attorney, Lead Prosecutor, Camarena Case.


 * It's obvious that these guys are the opposite to conspiracists and that their testimony in the documentary The Last Narc needs to be in the articles of Camarena and Félix Rodríguez.--Cocedi (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The addition is problematic on several levels. For starters it takes the narco docu as gospel. Here is a quote from what you wanted to add "The documentary explains the details of the torture and interrogation, including some of the questions that Félix Rodríguez asked Camarena in relation to the association that the CIA had reached with the Guadalajara cartel to introduce cocaine and crack into the United States, with the final goal of financing the Nicaraguan cons". Sorry but a lot of words like "alleged" and "according to" need to be in there. Some heavyweight investigations have come up empty handed trying to prove that....we can't just drop that in now (uncontested) based on a handful of DEA agents. There is also some serious questions here with regards to these sources. (As there is a on-going conversation on the Kiki Camarena talk page on this point.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what you call "a handful of DEA agents" are the DEA that led the investigation of Camarena's murder, the DEA Intelligence Director, the DEA resident agent in charge in Guadalajara when Camarena got kidnapped and the Lead Prosecutor in Camarena case. That's not a handful of DEA agents by any means, it's people directly and particularly linked to Camarena case. I agree with you though that the text can and must be improved. I gonna reverse your undo and you, please, include all the "alleged" and "according to" that you consider necessary in the current text. I'm aware of the ongoing conversation on Camarena talk. --Cocedi (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I made some edits. I don't see (in that Esquire article) the reference to the claims in the last sentence of the first paragraph. But I kept those claims in for now.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it definitely improved, thanks. --Cocedi (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to clean up those links/refs some too.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Got that done. I am planning on adding some of the denials involved here. (I.e. by the CIA and others at the DEA. Felix himself has not commented on this as far as I know.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena
there are more sources, including academic sources, that name Félix Rodríguez as organizing Camarena's murder. For instance historians Russell and Sylvia Bartley write in their University of Wisconsin Press book "Eclipse of the Assassins" that

And,

And,

There's another source placing Rodríguez in the middle of Camarena's murder as well: "Blood on the Corn" by investigative journalists Charles Bowden & Molly Molloy. They write:

And,

So there are plenty of sources for this. -Darouet (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion as to these claims and sources here Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the allegations should be mentioned in the article, but not in a poorly-formatted section above the "Bibliography" section. Because he is a living person and not convicted in a court of law it should be very clear that his involvement is alleged. But it is certainly worth devoting a section or sub-section to (perhaps below the "Iran-Contra" section).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the similar discussion in Talk:Kiki Camarena, we need to tread carefully because of the WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG concerns. If the allegations are included, we would also need to include material from something like the 2013 InsightCrime article. Regarding Rodriguez, that article states:
 * The Proceso stories argue the CIA had a direct relationship to the Guadalajara Cartel via corrupt Mexican police, which appears, by all accounts, to be true. But it also reconstructs the Matta Ballesteros story to fit its narrative. Specifically, it says a CIA asset named Felix Rodriguez — who famously claims to have presided over the capture and murder of Ernesto “Che” Guevara in Bolivia in 1967 — brought Matta Ballesteros to Mexico and introduced him to the Guadalajara Cartel for the express purpose of moving cocaine to the United States to fund the Contras. However, this is inconsistent with what’s known about Felix Rodriguez’s and Matta Ballesteros’ histories. Rodriguez, according to the independent counsel Lawrence Walsh’s report on the Iran Contra affair, did not become a clandestine coordinator for Contra aid until 1985, well after Matta Ballesteros had begun working with the Guadalajara Cartel.
 * - Location (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

At the beginning of the Camarena section a statement is made about "three former US federal agents attached to the CIA and the DEA claimed to the Mexican journal Proceso" [stuff about Camarena's murder]. Who is this "attached" to the CIA? Plumlee? Is there a RS specifically saying that? Because everything I have found on him so far show that to be a questionable claim.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking further, this is sourced (later in the article) to Proceso. I'm not sure Proceso is RS (it isn't on wiki's list). At the least, it should be clarified as a claim made by them.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)