Talk:History of Panama

message: No mention that Endara took office in a US military base. ALl the information provided seems to be put into the article to justify US invasion of Panama.
:: You are probably right that "Rebuilding Democracy"…≠←§ sounds a bit too triumphalistic. Maybe a more neutral title for that section would be "Institutions after Noriega" or "Political processes after Noriega". The fact that Endara took office in a US military base should be mentioned although that in itself does not invalidate the fact that he would (according to most accounts) have been the winner in the election earlier that year.  Please edit the article to make it more neutral, but with facts that you can support with references.--CSTAR 03:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuilding Democracy? 

message: The title of this section should be more descriptive; e.g., "The Spanish Colonial Period" (Caps used for consistency). J. Peterka 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post 1500s 

message: What about Lopez de Gomara and Peter Martyr d'Anghiera accounts of the presence of Negroes in the area? 
:The Spaniards found negro slaves in this province.[4] They only live in a region one day's march from Quarequa, and they are fierce and cruel. It is thought that negro pirates of Ethiopia established themselves after the wreck of their ships in these mountains. The natives of Quarequa carry on incessant war with these negroes. Massacre or slavery is the alternate fortune of the two peoples.
:[Note 4: This mysterious fact has been asserted by too many authors to be refused credence. The author's explanation of the existence of these Africans in America is possibly the correct one.]
from The Eight Decades of Peter Martyr D'Anghera translated by MacNutt, Francis Augustus. 
This might be related to Chihab Al-Umari's mention of Abubakari II's journey, even though it is rather speculative. --moyogo 04:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacks before Colombus 

message: I rewrote this section (Colonial Period) and will be redoing the next (Independence) soon. I also included some reference and bibliographical material. Should soon read better and shorter. I’ll need help with links and special notations featured in Wikipedia.  I’m looking forward be getting some help from the editors on these details. --castelauro 05:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting 

message: Is anyone editing this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.128.69 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boobs of commerce 

message: There are many issues regarding the history of Panama which are worthy of further discussion. Take the confusion in the use of the terms independence and separation for example, or the use of the term Gran Colombia. Both relate to usage. But while there is a more common awareness of the first locally, the debate over the term Gran Colombia is a more specialized and scholarly issue and has clear repercussions beyond Panama’s borders.
Independence refers to the continent wide process of emancipation from colonial rule, which lasted over a century throughout the continent. And separation refers to the actions by which two nations terminate a state of union as determined by one’s or both’s national interests. The discussions of these terms don´t usually escalate to the debate level.
On the other hand, a debate over the use of Gran Colombia exists, but mainly among historians, with a growing number making the argument of lack of historical precision and pointing to the term turning out to be a source of confusion.  Never the less, the growing use of the name Gran Colombia is a fact, however unfortunate.
In my view of the use of Gran Colombia is that the issue must be treated as a methodology problem and therefore addressed in forums like this. If we wish to be consistent with scientific methodology in historical narrative, how can we call a national entity something other than what it was called during its time, regardless of how popular and convenient this practice may be for some? My experience is that when confronted with the arguments, many historians admit to the impropriety of the term as well as to the need to explain the complexities and negative consequences inherent in its usage. I´m also aware that this practice originated among Colombian historians and spread internationally. castelauro 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note you left in my talk. I just want to clarify that I used the term Gran Colombia because as that article explains, this is nowadays the most common name used for the old Colombia, and the avoid confusion among the readers with the today's Republic of Colombia. You provide very good reasons for not doing so, and I am not an expert on history. I would suggest that based on WP:Reliable sources you expand the content in the corresponding section of the Gran Colombia article to make such clarification clearer, and also you might create a redirect to Gran Colombia, naming the redirect article something like Republic of Colombia (1819 to 1831) to avoid confusion with the name of today's Colombia.--Mariordo (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two historical issues 

message: As I stated above, I plan on finding good sources to use as citations in order to improve this article. I do not plan on producing a total overhaul of the entire thing, rather just improve what is already there by trying to put it in a more Panamanian perspective (which is proving difficult) and just citing more of the information. Most of my work will fall into the second half of the article: everything from the Panama Canal section to present day. In those sections I plan on editing and adding information where necessary and definitely adding citations. Sokeefe19 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How would your changes fit with the material published in the History of the Panama Canal article?  More specifically, what additions do you believe are necessary to improve the article's coverage of more recent history? Katherine.Holt (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Plans 

message: I thought you did a really nice job. You brought in many good sources in order to provide more information on the History of the Panama Canal. I would edit a few sentences in order to make them more clear. However, overall you did a really nice job. Jmpfer04 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think the new "Reaction to the Hay--Bunau-Varilla Treaty" section is necessary? I added it to provide more Panamanian perspective but I'm not sure it's necessary or does a good job on that front. Sokeefe19 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Panama. 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/20070921124735/http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2003/08/17/hoy/ciudad.shtml to http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2003/08/17/hoy/ciudad.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008025105/http://168.96.200.17/ar/libros/tar116/pizzu.rtf to http://168.96.200.17/ar/libros/tar116/pizzu.rtf
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) 21:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified