# Talk:Guillermo Endara

Is this external link still valid?
Endara's campaign website (http://www.endarapresidente.com/index.php)
Removed invalid link (14th June 2004)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Guillermo Endara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jethro B (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Preliminary comments:

There are some grammar issues or clarification issues throughout this article.  As I review each section, I will go through them myself and fix them.
There is some incorrect wiki-linking, such as linking to same article more than once, or linking to an article the second time that article appears, in this article.  I will identify them where I can and fix them.
The article on the whole looks reliably referenced.  All statements are supported by references.
The article, for a president, seems to be on the short side. Compare this with Vladimir Putin, for example.  Now of course, this is likely due to the fact this man doesn't make much international or Western news often, and thus our references are limited.  But try as much as possible to expand this article, and to find Panamanian news outlets and search for info on him from there.  Consider these in Spanish (if you don't know Spanish, you can use Google Translate, or ask me for help. I know some Spanish):
[1]
[2]
[3]
English ones:
[4]
[5]
The article seems to conform to WP:NPOV as well, and looks like it has a good tone.
I will begin an in-depth review of each section soon. --Jethro B 04:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


### Lead section
The sentence "Raised in a family allied to Panameñista Party founder Arnulfo Arias, Endara attended school in exile in the United States and Argentina, and later received a law degree in Panama" is awkward.  It seems to imply a connection between the alliance of his family and attending school.  I recommend splitting the sentence into two separate ones, or writing "He was raised in a family... Arias, and attended school... and Argentina. He later received... Panama."
Split. Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"Endara attended school in exile" - why would he have to attend school in exile? I don't think this is clear enough.
Clarified. Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"Arias' third overthrow" - try to find a wikilink about his 3rd overview so readers can have more info.
Not sure what you're looking for here--do you mean an article on the 1968 coup itself? I don't believe one exists, unfortunately. Our coverage of Panama is extremely thin.
The sentence "After Arias' death in 1988, Endara became a leading opponent of the military dictatorship of Manuel Noriega, leading the opposition coalition in the 1989 presidential election" is also phrased awkwardly.  It's confusing who led the opposition coalition - Endara or Noriega? This should be clarified.
Ambiguity fixed.
"the results were annulled" - who annuled them?  The government?  The military?
The government annulled them. Specifically the Electoral Tribunal[6], but this is generally summarized by reliable sources as being by the Noriega government or by Noriega's order specifically. Khazar2 (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"Seven months later, the United States invaded Panama" - we already wikilink to it, but I think it'd be helpful to just briefly mention in just a few words what the purpose was in relation to Endara.  As it is now, it isn't clear what one has to do with the other.
Clarified.
I've had a look at some of the references, and some of them are not completely filled out (such as refs 7, 9, 11, and 16). You should fill these out, with the author, publisher, page #, ISBN #, year of publication, etc...
The references/bibliography format is pretty standard, I think--you can compare Murder of Udin, another GA. Clicking on the link there gives the full information for the book, but the dual entry prevents the need to rewrite the full publication details for Harding every time the name appears. Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
My mistake. --Jethro B 00:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
--Jethro B 23:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
OK looks good so far. I've tried searching for a section in an article about the coup for Arias, but couldn't find one either, so we'll have to make do.  Muy bien.  I'll go on to the next section soon as well. --Jethro B 00:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
An editor has objected to a certain sentence in the lead and removed it.  Personally, I don't agree with this editor, but you'll need to sort this out with the editor and establish stability in order to upgrade this article to GA. --Jethro B 01:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, working on it. The editor actually raised a good point about accuracy there once persuaded to use the talk page. Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The editor below hasn't responded for a few days, so I'll assume it's good and continue with the next section.  If he responds, you can continue that discussion.


### Early life & career
"Endara was born in 1936 in Panama."  Is it possible to find a source for where in Panama he was born?  Most presidents of a country are required to have been born in that country, and for an article dealing with a president, we should have a certain level of detail.
New York Times had it--not sure how I overlooked that on the first pass.
"Endara reportedly went to school in Argentina."  I don't think this is the case based on the ref, which says "Various accounts say he was a brilliant student at secondary schools in Argentina and a military academy in Los Angeles."  It seems that the "various accounts" is referring to him being a brilliant student, not attending these schools.
Good call, I think I misread that sentence initially. Changed our article's sentence to "Endara went to school in Argentina and to a military school in Los Angeles in the United States, where he was reportedly a "brilliant student".
Definitely better, but I'm not sure if "reportedly" is accurate here.  We're only using that language because that's what our article previously said, but we've now shown that language isn't used in the reference.  The reference says this is what various accounts say, so maybe change it to "where he was described as a..."  It also sounds better and less awkward. --Jethro B 02:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
"was jailed in 1971, and joined Arias in exile until 1977."  Is there any more information on this to provide a clearer context, and explain how he went from being jailed to heading into exile? Was he released? Did he escape?
Unfortunately, this is very unclear to me. Both the English-language obits (New York Times and Independent) and the only Spanish-lang one I've found (La Prensa [7]) gloss over this period in his life very quickly with little or no more detail than currently written here. I've pretty well mined the databases available to me, too. (Google News, Highbeam, Questia). -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I just checked out the NYT ref, and it says he was jailed briefly.  So I'm assuming that means he was only jailed for a short time but then released, upon which he went to exile.  For clarity's sake, I think it'd be best to mention he was jailed briefly. --Jethro B 02:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
--Jethro B 00:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


### Opposition to Noriega
"Endara ran atop the ticket of" - I don't think this is correct wording.  If it's trying to say that he ran as the first choice or leader of it, consider "Endara ran at the head of..."  Whatever is most appropriate.
That's probably just a US idiom. I've rephrased it more simply. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
"international observers" - seems a bit vague. How were they international?  United Nations?  Or just a bunch of countries got together to monitor elections in Panama?  I understand there may not be sufficient info on this.
Former US prez Jimmy Carter was one of them, and the opposition had poll watchers of its own.[8] Sources are vague about who was there but Jimmy, though. This source [9] says "Opposition and international observers, including members of an uninvited U.S. delegation sent by President Bush". So there do seem to have been non-US, non-Panama observers. But your guess is as good as mine for who they were. =) Let me think about how to note this one in the article and get back to you.
Looking at that Chicago Tribune article, it does go on to detail the observers more. It's still not clear to me who organized/invited the Carter team, but it has at least an Mexican ex-president on it, so that one's not just US. Anyway, I've attempted to clarify this in the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
There is one reference at the end of this passage only, and I don't have a subscription to Highbeam so I can't check it, but I will put in a request for the full article and then get back to whether the passage matches the ref when I get the article.
E-mailed you a copy to look at. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
"was briefly hospitalized, receiving eight stitches" - sentence structure doesn't make sense, incorrect shift of action.  It should be something like "was briefly hospitalized, and he received eight stiches."
Adjusted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
"US" - spell it out in full for the entire article, it's better and more proper.
WP:ABBR approves of the usages "US" and "U.S."; I tend to prefer them, especially after the first use, as it saves space. Don't mind changing if you'd prefer though.
This reference in the article says it was two running mates that were beaten, not just one.
Added.
That reference also specifies the wound he received, which I think is an appropriate level of detail.
Added.
This reference doesn't work (ref #6).
The archiving was the problem here. I've removed the archive. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Reference #5 gives some more info on what was going on when they were attacked - there was a protest and everything.  I think this should be added, to show the context.  When I was reading it, I thought he was just attacked on the street randomly (although obviously the protest isn't a justification - this is just for clarity).
Added. Thanks again for your close review!
--Jethro B 18:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing new in a month and the above has all been addressed, so passing. Wizardman 01:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor has made a few edits to this article and others lately accusing me of POV editing, as here [10]. I'm glad to discuss the substance of these edits, but first I wanted to point out the basic principle of accepting good faith. Opening a discussion like that is needlessly inflammatory, and doesn't help to improve the articles.
As for the sourced content that the IP is seeking to delete, it was widely agreed in the sources I read that the pictures of the beatings helped shift public opinion in favor of military intervention, as here with a UK newspaper The Indepedent, in Endara's obituary:

"What tipped public opinion in the US in favour of intervention had been the bloody beatings handed out to Endara and his two vice- presidents by Noriega's thugs - the so-called Dignity Battalions - after the three men protested against Noriega annulling the election results. The world was shocked to see film footage and photographs of the men being battered by iron bars until their shirts ran red with blood."
It's not POV to summarize our reliable sources. I'm restoring this content for now, but if you have some sources that suggest Endara's beating had no impact on public opinion, or that it shifted world opinion in favor of Noriega, we can work to balance that better. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Another quickly Googled example from the Boston Globe [11]
"The attack on Ford and the opposition presidential candidate, Guillermo Endara, filmed by photographers and television crews, has hardened world opinion against the Noriega regime, perhaps more profoundly than any other single event since a political crisis began here two years ago." -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Where to begin?  Hardening world opinion against the Noriega regime is not at all the same thing as shifting public opinion in favor of a U.S. military invasion of the country.  The other source clearly states "What tipped public opinion in the US in favour of intervention" - emphasis mine, while your insertion implies that worldwide opinion was shifted in favor of a U.S. military invasion.  184.19.140.198 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, your framing the only alternatives to support for a U.S. invasion as either "Endara's beating had no impact on public opinion, or that it shifted world opinion in favor of Noriega" hasn't gone unnoticed.  What about the obvious reaction of the world community which was that it shifted public opinion against Noriega but world opinion - outside the U.S. - also condemned the U.S. invasion? 184.19.140.198 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
A good place to begin, as suggested above, would be to drop your assumption of bad faith. "It hasn't gone unnoticed"--why do you think I'm trying to pull a fast one? I've been explicit about my sources, and I've invited you to join in with your own. Believe me, I have no strong feelings about the US invasion of Panama, and I appreciate your help in finding the best summary of these sources.
Anyway, your rephrasing of that to be more specific about US opinion is good--I agree that it's a more accurate statement. I do still want to mention the impact of the photographs of Endara on world opinion, though, as the source I mentioned above notes. (And that other sources I looked at in creating this article certainly echoed--I can dig them up if you feel additional sources are needed.) What would you say to "hardening world opinion against Noriega and contributing to U.S. popular support for military intervention?" -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
How about "hardening world opinion against Noriega and contributing to U.S. popular support for the military invasion later in the year"?  Invasion, not intervention.  Although I'm sure someone could dig out something from a corporate media "reliable source" written after the December invasion stating there was significant support within the U.S. for an invasion of Panama in May 1989, I doubt there is any source written at the time claiming there was any public demand even within the U.S. for an invasion.  Believe me, it's hard to AGF around here or much anywhere else on the 'net anymore.  Are Noam Chomsky or The Nation considered reliable sources, or shall I stick to corporate media and U.S. State Department-funded groups?  184.19.140.198 (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, AGF is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia, and a very necessary one; it helps keep editors focused on improving article quality instead of questioning each other's motives. Honestly, whether in my personal life, I'm a US apologist or critic or George HW Bush writing under a screen name, we're still going to have to review the sources together and find a mutually agreeable and accurate summary. Making accusations of bad faith only slows down that process.
As for what sources are reliable, generally academics and fact-checked media are the gold standard. The Nation definitely qualifies in its reporting (though not, like any newspaper, in its opinion pages). Chomsky's work probably qualifies depending on its venue. (A speech he made wouldn't, a book through an academic publisher would). But specifically searching only noted left-wing publications and authors is going to result in a lopsided article. Did Chomsky write something about Endara that's particularly notable here? Obviously, if we're going out to the more partisan US press, we'll want to include The National Review, Dinesh D'Souza, etc. But I'm wary of seeking out sources to prove a given point, rather than taking note of obvious sources and summarizing what they have to say.
More than that, though, I worry that we're getting rather far afield by running this down at all. The phrasing "helping to build support within the U.S." doesn't mean that the invasion enjoyed 90% support, or even 50% support; just that the photographs of a bloody Guillermo Ford on the cover of Time increased the level of support. We'd be remiss as editors if we didn't mention this attack in the lead, and its impact on future events. It's one of the most famous things that ever happened to Endara.
As for the phrasing, we use the word "invasion" in the next sentence. If you're looking for something more neutral than "military intervention", how about "military action"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The accurate and NPOV word is "invasion".  "Intervention" and "action" are POV, as much as it would be POV to use "imperialist aggression".  184.19.140.198 (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I hear you on "intervention", but how is "military action" POV? Action is about as bland a word as it gets. And we already use the word "invasion"--it's not like the article's trying to avoid it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, "action" has historically been a U.S. term for what were really wars, as in the Vietnam and Korea "police actions".  To me, at least, it seems to be even more of a POV gloss than "intervention".  184.19.140.198 (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, police action would be a gloss, but that's not the phrase here. I don't think the New York Times is necessarily siding with North Korea by using the headline "North Korea Threatens South With Military Action",[12] or with Turkey in the sentence " Turkey’s Parliament on Thursday authorized further military action against Syria as Turkish forces fired a second round of artillery across the border" [13] Nor is the BBC siding with Georgia in the sentence "The conflict began overnight last Thursday, when Russia responded to Georgian military action in South Ossetia". [14] It's a commonly used phrase for actions that are military, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Based on the above examples, I've changed the phrase to "military action" for now. But I'm also willing to return to "military intervention"--the phrase used by our reliable source, a UK paper--if that's your preference. Glad to discuss further if you like. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)