Talk:Derwick Associates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources

I understand your concern about the sources used, and certainly, some of them might not meet WP:RS standards. The problem is that independent media is illegal in Venezuela. From the BBC:

The Venezuelan media are regulated by the controversial Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television (Resorte).

The government promoted it as a means of keeping sex and violence off the airwaves when children might be watching, and to increase the proportion of Venezuelan-produced programming.

However, critics see in it a strategy to silence opposition media by limiting their content to soap operas, cultural and educational programmes and a sanitised version of the news before 11pm.

And as far as internet goes:

The internet is regulated by broadcasting legislation and Conatel can order service providers to restrict access to websites or messages which breach the law. The government says this is to protect people from cyber crime.

You'll also notice that there is a page titled Media of Venezuela. It mentions the main "private" television stations are RCTV, Venevisión, Televen, and Globovisión. I put private in scare quotes because they are banned from criticizing the government.

RCTV was shut down in 2007 for its opposition to Chavez, Venevisión stopped criticizing Chavez in 2005 for fear of being shut down, and Televen did the same in 2004.

One might also notice that there is no page for Newspapers in Venezuela. If one were to search the media index ABYZ News Links for newspapers in Venezuela [1] one would find a disturbingly small number of national newspapers. The only newspapers are:

• 2001
• El Mundo
• El Universal
• Ultimas Noticias

This should be no surprise given their treatment of journalists [2]

Here is a list of the sources used with a brief explanation of their background as it pertains to reliability:

• Globovision (According to the BBC, "the only terrestrial TV station still openly critical of the government.[3] They were "fined in 2011 for a report about a prison riot that the authorities said 'promoted hatred and intolerance for political reasons.'")
• Latin American Herald Tribune (Has been used as a reliable source before. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2010)
• El Universal (Discussed in th RS Noticeboard and described as "one of the leading newspapers". Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break)
• Últimas Noticias (This is probably the premier national newspaper in Venezuela. Definitely a WP:RS)
• Law.com (This is merely used as a secondary source on a court case in which the facts are uncontested.)
• El Venezolano (Appears to have a publication in Miami, Orlando, Houston, Panama, Costa Rica, and Venezuela, among other places. I would be surprised if it is not considered a WP:RS)
• TJS.gov (.gov site, primary source, obvious WP:RS)
• El Mundo (I think it goes without saying that El Mundo is a RS, but we can have that discussion if you like)

The following three sources have never been discussed and it is probably worth starting a discussion on the noticeboard:

• Analitica (Has been used as a source on th talk page for Hugo Chavez. Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 21)
• Etorno Inteligente
• Soberania (soberania.org)

I will address the other issues under a new heading, as I believe they are sufficiently different to warrant a new discussion.Justiciero1811 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Prod

I have proposed this page for deletion, based on three facts: 1. Notability: This page fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines. The organization in question is not encyclopedically relevant, and the article reads like a news story, which is also encyclopedic. The sourcing for the article is almost entirely spanish language advocacy blogs that read suspiciously similarly in their charges. 2. NPOV: The vast preponderance of the article is biased against the subject of the article. In fact, the article was constructed by one person only, and only for purposes of establishing his POV. 3. Thus, the article is promotional in nature. FinanceReferee (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)FinanceReferee

Agree It seems its main contributor is obsessed with posting information against the company, so no NPOV at all. --Maor X (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I have laid out below. It doesn't appear that the template was inserted correctly, so the users who participate in Article for Deletion discussions wouldn't have been notified in the first place. I have given FinanceReferee some guidance on their talk page, and if they review the WP:BEGIN criteria and still want to nominate the article then we can open the discussion again. Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my deletion proposal is properly framed, and it is disingenuous and inaccurate to suggest it is not. Further, Justiciero1811 appears to be a sockpuppet identity with no purpose on wikipedia other than this article, which is a violation as well. Justiciero1811 fails to address the substantial point in the deletion proposal, including below, which is simply obfuscation of the fact that his claims fail the wikipedia test of notability, either in the topic of the article (which is news oriented rather than encyclopedic) or claims, which are improperly sourced. The rest of his lengthy monologue is simply not on topic at all. FinanceReferee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down there buddy, I meant no offense. I only suggested a different way of proposing something for deletion because that's how I've always seen it done.

Accusing me of being a sockpuppet is uncalled for. I'm doing my best to remain civil and I will continue to do so. I hope you will grant me the same respect in return.

You also say that I "fail[ed] to address the substantial point in the deletion proposal." I am confused by this statement. I wrote my response to directly respond to each of the three reasons you propsed the article for deletion in the first place.

I am going to remove the removal template, and if you wish to continue with the deletion procedure feel free to add the necessary template to the article. Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your removal is inappropriate and improper, and I have restored it. If you continue, I will summon moderation help. FinanceReferee (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think my change was improper, but I removed the proposal in accordance with the WP:PROD policies that I mentioned earlier:

PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted. The first objection kills the PROD. Even after these seven days, a PRODed article can be restored by anybody through an automatized request for undeletion. By the same logic, PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD...If anyone, including the article creator, removes a [proposed deletion template] from an article, do not replace it...

The next suggested step is taking it up with the WP:Articles for Deletion, where the community can become involved in the discussion. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversions

The content on the page is constantly being reverted, so I am bringing it here.

The lead falls in line with WP:LEAD, which says that it "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." These are very clear points and the lead currently provides an overview of what Derwick Associates is most notable for.

Some other statements have been disputed, suggesting there are multiple sources that prove otherwise; unfortunately, no such sources have been provided. If there are other WP:RS that dispute any facts, then a discussion here will be appropriate. Justiciero1811 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, this page is being reverted because user justiciero1811 is using it solely as a personal soapbox, and violating multiple WP rules, which have been noted by several users. He continues to ignore WP rules on notability and NPOV. This page will be edited, including reversions, until it is either deleted or accurate and fair. FinanceReferee (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

RSN and BLP

I do speak Spanish, but don't have the time to sort out the substantial issues in this article. I was pinged to respond at the RSN-- no primicias24.com does not meet even the basics of WP:RS, but I am more concerned that this article needs to be looked at for WP:BLP vios because numerous marginal sources are used.

• BLP Noticeboard
• Reliable sources noticeboard (which I had to bring back from archives to respond to the query on my talk page).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Content to be included

There have been some concerns expressed over some content on the page and any attempt to add information from Reliable Sources is met with reversions, and it has been made clear that this type of action wont stop. Here is a version that can be compared to the page in its current state.[4] Does the content of the page reflect the sources that are available? I suggest that we change the content back to more closely reflect the previous version of the page and actively discuss any particular problems. I am also unsure of how to proceed within the guidelines for user conduct, so any guidance on that would be appreciated as well. Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'd be hesitant to touch this before any other users chime in, but the sources given above look acceptable and it appears that there are no particular complaints about them. (It should probably be noted that I am not fluent in Spanish, so I'm looking at the translations.) I'd say the page should be based off of something like that prior revision and tweaked from there. What is added now is pretty ridiculous, and the defamation lawsuit section from "On December 7" onwards just isn't notable, and is the biggest case of undue weight I see. It's a puff piece now, which I guess isn't shocking because there seems to be an obvious agenda that is being pushed. Also take a look at this policy regarding legal threats. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Clearly we are in severe COI land here if nothing else. I have spent to much of Christmas Day on Wikipedia already , so I am going to refer this to AN/I, with a suggestion that top consideration bee given to COI and UNDUE. Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC).
  
• Comment I'm not fluent in Spanish, but neither really fan of Google Translate either, because its accuracy can be contested. Generally we shouldn't avoid sources close to government if there is no other alternatives, but we shouldn't post them as straight facts either. All information, especially information that can't be backed up by other sources than ones close to government, should be carefully weighed and removed if not seem fit for encyclopedia. Monni (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reverted per this discussion. I understand the above comments as supporting the linked diff, but if I made a mistake, let me know at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration

I restored content that I had added which was removed by FergusM1970. It was there in the hopes that we would be able to discuss specific concerns on the Talk page instead of constantly reverting on the mainspace. If we don't want to discuss that content then maybe it would be best for other pieces to be added here. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And I'm going to remove it again. The talk page is not the place to reproduce huge chunks of the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines suggest that the Talk page is " is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." The piece was included to open up a discussion if any users deemed this necessary and doesn't need to be taken out. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes - the talk page is to provide a place to discuss changes to the article, not to reproduce deleted sections of it. By all means discuss what you think should be in there and why, but please don't use this page to keep disputed material on Wikipedia. That's not what talk pages are for, so stop it. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That is an attempt to start a discussion. Instead of reverting it, it should be left to (at minimum) show others the progression of the talk page. Talk pages allow users to park material that can be discussed, and although we have moved on, it does show important pieces of the background of the page. Modifying other users' comments should only be done in exceptional cases. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you want to start a discussion try raising some points. Please do NOT repeatedly copy chunks of the article on here. It is not necessary and it is not desirable.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Blanket reverts

I have made a considerable number of edits to this article; I have taken care to explain each one and to point out why I think they improve the article and move it closer to the goal of being NPOV (even though I don't actually think it's notable.) Justiciero1811 has now twice carried out a blanket revert with no explanation whatsoever; his aim appears to be to preserve the original hideously POV version he created. Please let's try to achieve concensus here rather than edit warring and slinging accusations of sockpuppetry around. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad you are willing to discuss any big problems on the talk page going forward. I have addressed the problems that I noticed and hope you can voice your concerns here if there is anything that stands out. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have one concern, and that is your insistence on maintaining this article as an attack piece. Many of your justifications for edits are absurd. "Reinstating references to illustrate relevance and to avoid losing them for other uses" What's that supposed to mean? If you want to use refs for other purposes bookmark them; Wikipedia is not your notebook. As for the rest of it you have reinstated dubious translations of sources and a pile of irrelevant material. Your only objective is to slander the company and that is NOT what Wikipedia is for, Alek.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this discussion has been continued on FergusM1970's talk page.[5] Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Manuel Diaz

It's mentioned that Manuel Diaz made allegations against Derwick then subsequently retracted them. I think we need some indication of who Manuel Diaz is and why his allegations matter; otherwise we might as well say "Someone said stuff then admitted he made it up." At the moment it adds nothing to the article other than to smear the company.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all very confusing to me. Above you make the argument that Entorno Inteligente is not a reliable source, then you intend to use it as a source when it serves your purposes. You wrote:

Well-sourced?? WTF?? The hunting estate allegation is based on a spew of crackpot ravings about criminal conspiracies, which Entorno Inteligente published along witha letter strongly denying them. That is not an RS by any stretch of the imagination. The same "source" which mentions the hunting estate also says Derwick bought a billion tons of "iron and slabs" before swerving off into conspiracy theories about diesel smuggling, coltan, US intelligence agencies and iguanas. It's not a reliable source; it's demented.

Can you please point out where, specifically, the source mentions Manuel Diaz retracting his claim? The source for this claim was placed by the lawyer of Derwick Associates[6] and says nothing about Diaz retracting his claim. In fact, it says quite the opposite. Here is what the article says:

Manuel Díaz que hay información de que estos se encuentran en el Banco del Tesoro por un total de US$700 millones "y aquí están las pruebas de las transferencias entre Gazprombank del Líbano al Banco del Tesoro que se realizaron en dos partes: la primera transferencia fue de US$206 millones el 10 de marzo y la segunda se realizó el 18 de marzo por un monto de 500 millones de dólares; por eso le exigimos al Presidente; le reintegre ese dinero al pueblo de Guayana y a sus trabajadores y estamos enviando una comunicación al Ministro de Planificación Jorge Giordani solicitando el reintegro del dinero para adecuaciones tecnológicas, pagos a proveedores, materia prima y algunos pasivos que se les adeudan a los trabajadores.

In short, it says that a $700 million was transferred into Gazprombank and Manuel Díaz is calling for the money to be returned. There is nothing in the article about a retraction. Justiciero1811 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's possible that my translation was wrong on this point. I don't see any mention of Derwick either though... --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What did your translation say?

I'm not going to defend this source. It was added by Derwick's lawyers and is totally misleading. Derwick is mentioned in the Ultimas Noticias article linked to in the same paragraph. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Content

I'll start another thread to go over the content – that way we don't need to continually revert each other. Each piece will have its own section; when applicable, the information in question will be italicized.

First contract

The firm was awarded 12 contracts for such installations in Venezuela during a 2009-2010 energy crisis in that country – their first contract of that kind.

Comments

I think this one goes without saying, but this piece is reliable and interesting because it is the first of the kind.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, of course, every company that builds power stations has had a first contract of that kind. It seems to me that by stressing the fact you're trying to raise questions about why this contract was awarded to Derwick. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because every contractor has a first contract doesn't mean that this shouldn't be included. It is an interesting piece of information and relevant to the situation. We aren't adding any extra information, so I don't see the problem.Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything interesting about it at all, frankly, but it can certainly be mentioned if you feel it's important. How about "Derwick's first project was the award of 12 power station contracts in Venezuela during a 2009-2010 energy crisis in that country."? That gives the information but isn't open to misinterpretation like the original wording was. Are you happy with that?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be a fair way to include the information. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Other activities

It was reported in August 2012 that Derwick Associates had paid $24 million for El Alamin, a 1,600-acre hunting estate in Toledo, Spain, for the personal use of Betancourt Lopez.

In January 2012, Derwick donated funds for the construction of a football field in Sucre.

Comments

These are activities outside the realm of typical business projects. They are stated as facts and are well-sourced.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well-sourced?? WTF?? The hunting estate allegation is based on a spew of crackpot ravings about criminal conspiracies, which Entorno Inteligente published along witha letter strongly denying them. That is not an RS by any stretch of the imagination. The same "source" which mentions the hunting estate also says Derwick bought a billion tons of "iron and slabs" before swerving off into conspiracy theories about diesel smuggling, coltan, US intelligence agencies and iguanas. It's not a reliable source; it's demented. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to doubt Etorno Inteligente, but we can start a conversation about that being an RS. The letter was from a Derwick official and Etorno Inteligente didn't retract the report or suggest that it was wrong in any way, only that Derwick had a problem with it (it isn't shocking that they would have such a problem). Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sidor

Derwick also contracted to supply a power plant for Sidor, Venezuela's largest steel corporation, for over $700 million, which included a surcharge of $280 million. Although the plant was supposed to begin operation in May 2010, it was reported that construction had not yet gotten underway as of August 2012, quoting technicians close to the project saying that it “consists of reconstructed turbines and used equipment.” A Derwick official responded with a letter denying the charges in the report.

Comments

This was reported and a Derwick official denied it – it was not proven as false. By mentioning the report and that it was denied by Derwick Associates, it maintains balance.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Derwick were contracted to supply the plant, which they did. By my reading of the sources they weren't contracted to install it, so the fact that it isn't installed has nothing to do with them and by stressing this point they seem to be getting the blame for not doing something they weren't hired to do. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Madrid address

A journalist working for Venezuela's Últimas Noticias presented herself at Derwick's official address in Madrid, Spain in 201 and spoke over the intercom with a man who she reported had a Venezuelan accent and who, in answer to her question, told her that the building was not the headquarters of Derwick but was his residence.

Comments

This is reputable, concise, and fairly summarizes the Últimas Noticias article.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but, uh, so what? Journalist goes to house and gets told it's a house. And the notability is...? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A journalist arrived at their listed address and found that it was someone's personal residence. This is at least significant enough to be picked up in a nationally circulated newspaper. Again, we are just stating the facts of the RS and not adding extra commentary, so this should be alright.Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I run a business. Arrive at the listed address and guess what you're going to find? However the source listed for that is Soberania and while its reliability hasn't been discussed it doesn't smell of RS to me. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it's a site belonging to a political/pressure group and Batiz is a major player there. I'm very concerned about how much of this information comes from Cesar Batiz because, quite frankly, he looks like a nut on the subject. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The source is Ultimas Noticias and there have been no evidence of any RS doubting Ultimas Noticias or Batiz, which should be present for us to doubt Venezuela's most-circulated news source.Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Payments

In November 2011, Derwick was accused of breaching payments to workers.

Comments

They were, in fact, accused of this. It is directly stated in the source. Please reference the paragraph beginning with "Johan Romero".Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Who accused them? Batiz? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The source says that they are accused of breaching payments – it seems pretty clear. Is there some sort of confusion about the link? Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

and the source is (yet again) Cesar Batiz, correct? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it actually looks like it is a small report. Again, it is posted by Ultimas Noticias, which is an RS.Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Scrutiny

During an energy crisis in Venezuela in 2009-2010, Derwick won several contracts to construct and provide supplies for a number of power plants in that country and has been the subject of scrutiny.

Comments

The company has, in fact, been the subject of much scrutiny. As I said in my earlier edit, "[j]ust because some other unnamed companies are as well doesn't take away from the relevance here."Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The company has been the subject of "scrutiny" by Batiz and Boyd. Batiz is, in fact, the source of almost all the coverage of the company's alleged misdeeds. To me it looks like a personal vendetta of some kind. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You are questioning a number of reliable sources here. Batiz is a very reputable writer and has apparently received a number of awards. I don't see any Boyd sources listed so am unsure about what you mean in this situation. If you have questions with the RSs, maybe the better place to discuss this is WP:RS/N so we avoid WP:OR.Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I am questioning one source, and that is Cesar Batiz. Almost all the coverage of Derwick has been generated by him, spread across a number of publications. That makes it look like there are multiple RS for this, but in fact there aren't; there is only Batiz. The reason I mentioned Boyd is that you, Boyd and Batiz seem to be the only three people in the world who have an interest in Derwick. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, Ultimas Noticias and Batiz are very reputable and have not been questioned by any RS that I can find. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Officers

The following individuals are listed as directors of the firm: Pedro Trebbau López, Leopoldo Alejandro Betancourt López, Gonzalo X. Guzman López (listed as Domingo X. Guzman De Frutos López as a director of the Barbados firm), Edgar Romero Lazo, and Iker Candida. Betancourt, Trebbau, and Hernández are the officers of the United States-based firm.

Comments

This is a simple list of the Directors of the firm so should be fine.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Completion dates

Bariven awarded contracts in 2010 amounting to more than $760 million for power plants to Derwick and two other intermediaries. Of that sum, the contracts awarded to Derwick amounted to $209 million. The $760 million sum included surcharges of over $403 million, of which just under $87 million were surcharges paid to Derwick. There were allegations of double billing by Derwick for the same parts. In five of the contracts, Derwick was said to have failed to meet completion dates.

Comments

The allegations are reported in the article and are presented without excess commentary.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The allegations don't seem to be reported anywhere except in that article and no evidence was provided to support them. The article was, of course, written by Batiz. I'm rather worried about giving undue weight to his views, as he seems to have views about Derwick that are at the very least bordering on obsession. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This was reported in Venezuela's number one circulated newspaper – one that was historically very Chavez-friendly. Reports in here should be considered incredibly reputable. Again, questioning a very reliable source should be taken up on the appropriate noticeboard if you think there's a problem. Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, again, the almost total reliance on a single source, especially when he's just making claims with no evidence to back them up. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no additional analysis presented - just reports. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal activity

César Batiz sued the Venezuelan Minister of Minerals and Petroleum in March 2012 for information about Derwick.

On September 13, 2012, Derwick Associates Corp. and its co-founders, Leopoldo Betancourt López and Pedro Trebbau López, filed a lawsuit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, charging that it had suffered severe damage to its reputation as a result of actions by the Caracas-based bank Venezolano de Credito SA Banco Universal, by the bank's president and chairman, Oscar García Mendoza, and by Rafael Alfonzo Hernandez, a member of the bank's board. The suit, according to one account, “alleged defamation of Derwick, Betancourt and Trebbau; tortious interference with contract and with business relationships; deceptive and unfair trade practices; and civil conspiracy. The company is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions as well as monetary damages.”

The amount of damages specified in the lawsuit was $300 million. The premise of the lawsuit was that García Mendoza and Alfonzo Hernandez were connected with the anonymous Spanish-language website www.wikianticorrupcion.org, which had accused Derwick of criminal corruption. Betancourt López said: “This legal action is not against freedom of expression, but against the practice of anonymous defamation. We have been the object of a campaign based on absolutely false charges.” García Mendoza denied that he, the bank, or Alfonzo Hernandez had done any of the things they were charged with.

Comments

There is a very significant amount of information on legal activity pertaining to Derwick Associates. The section doesn't make any allegations of its own and presents the information in a plain manner.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Services

Derwick Associates is a primarily Venezuelan company that “provides engineering, procurement and power-plant construction services".

Comments

These are the services that Derwick Associates say the provide. The majority of their actions seem to be related power-plant construction.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with power stations, but their construction requires large amounts of both procurement and engineering. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't include a more clear description – one that they themselves provided. Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to that wording; I just think it's unnecessarily wordy when "engineering company" conveys the same information. By all means put it back in if you think it would be an improvement. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Inception

In a lawsuit filed in 2012, Derwick directors maintained that the firm was founded in 2007.

Comments

Unique information that was brought up by the directors. This helps construct the history.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pointless information that adds nothing. The only suggestion that Derwick wasn't founded in 2007 comes from a video embedded in an article by (who else?) Cesar Batiz, claiming that Derwick was founded in Panama in 2003. However a quick search was enough to show that this Panamanian company, registration number 431880, had nothing to do with the personalities involved in the Venezuelan firm Derwick. Batiz couldn't spare 2 minutes to check his facts, but luckily I've done it for him. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide links or elaborate on what you see? Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Here's the record summary: Derwick Associates S.A.. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And this is why Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to do Original Research. If you take 5 more seconds and click on the link for the director of the company, Luis A. David[7] you will find that he is the director of nearly 1,000 companies. This is because Davis is a proxy director. These arrangements are common for companies that want to hide who the real directors are; these types of arrangements are present in the United States as well. Please leave the investigating to the investigative reporters.

Also, how did you come across ohuiginn.net? I wasn't aware that anyone outside of South America knew about it since it's basically a private blog of Dan O'Huiginn. And how did you come to suspect that Derwick was not registered in Panama? Perhaps if I understood how you came to suspect this fact, I could better assist in resolving this issue. Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

lmgtfy.com/?q=panama+company+register --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

References

References

Ultimas Noticias

I opened up an RS/N discussion on Ultimas Noticias to help put all the back-and-forth to rest.[8] Hopefully we can move forward now that we know it is highly reliable. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's reliable or not when it doesn't support what it's being cited for. Where are surcharges mentioned? Where does it say the accusations of double billing were aimed at Derwick and not one of the other companies?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all from the digital print version of Últimas Noticias (another[9]). "Bariven compro con sobreprecio" translates to "Bariven bought (contracted) with overprice" (sobreprecio means overpriced in any dictionary).

All the companies, Derwick included, are mentioned with respect to overpricing;

Spanish: "Últimas Noticias publicó un reportaje en el que se evidencia que las compañías Derwick Associates, KCT Cumana II y Ovarb Industrial ofertaron las 17 unidades con un sobreprecio de $403 millones de dólares."

English: "Ultimas Noticias published an article in which it exposed Derwick Associates, KCT Cumana II y Ovarb Industrial offered 17 units overpriced by $403 million."[10]

Just out of curiosity, do you speak Spanish fluently? Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Overpriced" is a subjective opinion and does not mean "surcharge." And no, I don't speak Spanish at all. However my sister in law does; she's from Salamanca, and seems fairly fluent. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I see the issue. This is a simple translation problem. There are many more words in English than (to my knowledge) in any other language on the planet. Because of this huge vocabulary, some words don't necessarily translate verbatim. For example, in Dutch, they don't have a word that directly translates into "glove": they use the word "hand shoe" instead. If we were to take your line of reasoning, it would make translations all but impossible... Not to mention the fact that the word "sobreprecio" directly translates into "surcharge" in English...[11]:

sobreprecio SM (=recargo) surcharge; (=aumento de precio) increase in price

Why you insist on challenging me on these minor semantic issues is beyond me, but I guess some people just like to argue.Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A surcharge is an extra charge applied on top of the price. It's not the same as overpricing. This is indeed a simple translation problem, but it's not me that's making it. There is a reason I have things translated by a native Spanish speaker who's also fluent in English, which is to avoid problems.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear above: "sobreprecio" means "surcharge". There is no distinction between the two words. The issue might be that your sister is from Salamanca where they speak a different dialect of Spanish from the Spanish of South America. This article was published in South America, not Spain.

I do speak Spanish, as does my entire family. I can assure you that they are the same thing. But since there is a snowball's chance in hell that you're going to take my word for it, I'm going to ask someone else who knows Spanish to comment on this post. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, and in English "surcharge" does not mean "increase in price."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that we will need to accept Justiciero1811 version and agree that "sobreprecio" means "surcharge" but in this situation I see the inconvenience of this word's usage as it means "fee" and we deal here with the increase in price.-- Folklorin (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly my issue with it. On a strict interpretation of the word it's possible to insist on "surcharge," despite that not being what "surcharge" means in English at all. It's just a shame this subject is so totally lacking in notability there are no English-language sources, isn't it? As for accepting Justiciero's version, I would say not. The source is talking about excessively high fees (a subjective opinion, of course,) not surcharges, and I don't think we should let "surcharges" get pushed in for technical reasons. There were no surcharges applied and using the word will just confuse the English speakers this article is intended for. This is English Wikipedia and the article should be written to make sense in English, not to match the words of some Venezuelan hack.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hi, I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days. Would you still like assistance on this? The bot archived the discussion because it had been a couple of weeks since it was opened. I thought we were making some progress; I'm happy to unarchive the discussion (or continue it here) if you think it would be helpful. --Merlinme (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your assistance would be much appreciated.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we might as well continue it here where it's not going to get archived.

Looking at the article currently, references: 5 (law.com), 7 (soberania.org), 8 (elvenezolanonews.com), and 10 (entornointeligente.com) have had their reliability questioned. Should these references be deleted, or is anyone prepared to argue that they are in fact Reliable Sources? Can alternative references be found? If those references are deleted and no alternatives can be found, is there any material which needs to be deleted from the article because it is controversial and no longer supported?

Once we've finished sorting out the sorting we can look at any further issues. Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that they're not reliable, as they appear to be small and potentially biased operations. I'd really, really like to see more RSs being used that didn't involve Cesar Batiz. He may very well be a reliable journalist, but the impression I'm getting is that he's not too objective on this subject and some independent corroboration of his claims would make the article look a lot less like a hatchet piece.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As nobody has stepped up to defend the reliability of these sources, I'm going to wait another day or two then remove the claims based on them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've returned the "Legal activity" section that was removed as being from unreliable sources. The sources were ok - Law.com is part of ALM, and in this case they were republishing an article from Daily Business News, which is reliable. Law360 is part of LexisNexis, and is a reliable source, and El Mundo is also fine, although the content it covers is also backed up by one of the Law60 articles, and shouldn't be controversial in itself. The last source was Analítica.com, which looks reliable, but the only thing it was being used to source was the $300m figure, and that was in the Daily Business News article, so I replaced the ref for an English one to make it a bit easier for some readers to verify. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that sounds fair enough.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)