Talk:Panama/Archive 1

message: I essentiall reverted the page to its previous state. However, the anonymous changes were noted and in some form should appear on either
* The Panama history page
* Operation Just Cause page
, a paid and demonstrable CIA collaborator. 
On October 3, 1989, several officers of the Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) under the leadership of Major Moises Giroldi attempted to oust General Noriega and seize power under support of US forces, which mobilized, and blocked two roads leading towards the PDF headquarters, just as they golpe leaders had requested. But the golpistas also wanted US combat air support and would have required US ground forces to provide active assistance. George H.W. Bush stalled on these requests, and the coup team was being rounded up and liquidated. 
Since George Bush urged the overthrow of Noriega, he was criticized not to have backed the rebels with US armed forces and a second coup d'etat was staged this time ostensibly because of 
CSTAR 13:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noriega 

message: The material deleted on the history section of the Panama should appear in some form in the History of Panama page. Nevertheless, the article should couched be in less inflamatory language, such as it is generally believed or 'it has been widely reported that Noriega recieved support and funding from etc. Please understand that I don't have any objection to putting these historical facts in the History of Panama article. Nevertheles use of derogatory terms to describe any group of people, in particular the pejorative Yanqui or Yankee is not acceptable.CSTAR 04:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: PS You should sign your articles. I would prefer to maintain a dialog about what should go in the article. You are right to try to maintain a balance and get some other viewpoint in. But this is a process of approximation and correction. It doesn't work to your advantage by a kind of hit and run. CSTAR 05:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  SORRY IF I DID IT WRONG, BUT IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT, THERE IS A PICTURE OF MANORIEGA SITTING ON A SOFA WITH JBUSH(CIRCA 1984-87???)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.124.12.18 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: There are two different issues at stake
* The reasons given by the U. S. which were reported for instance in the NY Times, included drug trafficking and human rights. These may not be believable, but this isn't what the article says.
* The actual motives, which for instance could have been circumventing the treaty as was widely believd in Latin AMerica.
Referring to the invasion as his invasion really ignores the observable fact that a superpower invaded Panama. Making Bush appear worse by dumping all the responsability on him may be gratifying (I don't like him either) but it does not change the historical fact.  Your POV about motives is plausible, but it is POV nonetheless.  CSTAR 03:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of the invasion 

message: On :Image:Inferior panama map.gif the contrast is fine; on :Image:Panamamap.gif the green-on-light-blue is not very clear.--Patrick 10:58-11:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can alter that I would just change it to black but that would defete the point of having different colours Geni 11:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a darker green.--Patrick 12:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: done. I have also chaged the file to png format.Geni 13:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That is much better.--Patrick 13:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: trickyGeni 11:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color contrast 

message: I urge everyone to look at the enlarged versions of these maps and not to make judgement on the thumbnails. Jooler 11:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments refer to the full versions.--Patrick 11:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full versions 

message: I prefer a clear simple font, rather than a "decorative font" like used for "Caribbean Sea".--Patrick 11:32-11:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather like it since it shows that different types of things are being labeled. Geni 11:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decorative font 

message: I'd like to jump in with a few comments about the above discussions. I started WikiProject Maps to help give map creators a set of guidelines. We do have many different (sometimes conflicting) map styles here; I hoped that having a set of recommended colors, line and font styles would ease the burden on the map-maker by eliminating the often difficult and revision-filled task of making legible, professional-looking maps. Having created a few maps myself, I know that map-making is harder than it appears. Maps can convey multiple sets of information - geography, terrain, political boundaries, climate, place names, city size, latitude/longitude coordinates, and any number of positional locators and landmarks. A map designer could spend hours or days on stylistic choices alone, especially considering color perception deficiencies and the limitations of computer display resolution (which is much lower than print resolution). The project was begun with the intention of simplifying those choices, but nothing more than that.
I should emphasize that aside from some discussion and brainstorming, the project has not matured into anything resembling a "house style." Everything about that project is still tentative and preliminary; we never even really agreed on the color palette, let alone any guidelines on line/font styles, iconography, minimum resolution, etc. There is no house style for maps on Wikipedia. As far as I know, there are no maps at all in Wikipedia that precisely follow the currently-listed color and style suggestions. Even if the project does eventually mature into a more solid set of style recommendations, a WikiProject has no authority to enforce rules about what kind of map you can create for Wikipedia (hence the opening statement quoted by Guettarda above).
I think Kelisi would have benefitted from having a proven color palette to use in his maps. I also think that most of the CIA maps are too simplistic to be very useful. The CIA Panama map is a fine example of a map that looks nice, but communicates little. Kelisi's first Panama map communicates a lot more, but is hard on the eyes. Geni's revision is much better; it would be better still with some anti-aliasing, but it's a great example of what we can achieve through collaboration.
I applaud the efforts of everyone who contributes maps, even if I find their graphic design choices less than ideal. If the maps WikiProject was more mature, we could more effectively collaborate on a comprehensive free map collection, with consistent, professional-looking maps. I'd encourage anyone who has comments on these maps, or map-making in general, to join (and possibly revive) the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. -- Wapcaplet 05:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These maps are several, very several mistakes, I'm panamanian, and these maps don´t put in this article. See http://www.contraloria.gob.pa/dec/Publicaciones/17-01/div_pol2003.pdf and compare these version with the official version. --Taichi 05:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Maps 

message: I've taken the liberty of replacing the map that was included with this article. Without wishing to detract from the intent of the creator of the previous map, I don't think that it looked at all professional; as a side issue, it was also excessively over-sized at 502KB. Furthermore, as  by Taichi, some of the boundaries that it shows are incorrect (although this is a problem with numerous maps for the country).
Hope that my replacement meets with approval! Cheers, Silverhelm 09:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map revisited 

message: The most recent edit by an anonymous user added several external links, one of which is to a private consulting firm. Though the linked website could potentially provide useful economic and political information about Panama, access to most of that site requires a member subscription. This reduces the utility of that link and makes it little more than an advertisement for that consulting group. I believe this is against WP policy.--CSTAR 14:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest external links 

message: Very Light on essential events in South America....
In fact some would say there is still much contention caused by the original treaty. America's heavy handed use of terror, assassination, causation of civil strife, and wreaking mayhem in the financial affairs resulting in monstrous debt burdens, unemployment, poverty, and horrendous social upheaval in South American nations over the course of many decades is known to all the world except the American populace who suffer a controlled media.
In fact the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty was signed by U.S. Secretary of State Hay and Philippe Bunau-Varilla, a French engineer, who had been a part of the original French canal team. The treaty was NOT signed by a single Panamanian! It was prefaced by President Roosevelt sending in the U.S. warship Nashville, landing American soldiers who seized and killed, and declared Panama an indepent nation after Columbia refused to concede to America's demand she sign a treaty signing over the isthmus to a North American consortium.
The following paragraph shrieks loudly by what it does NOT say. To call Torrijos's death an "accident" is to address with ignorance and arrogance events in particular: in Panama, and in general: all over the world, in which America has been directly or indirectly involved in death and destruction. That we wonder how the world could hate us is more than offset by the rest of the world's population wondering how we can continue to be so blind and indifferent to the shameful and deplorable workings of our own government and corporations in dealings both foreign and domestic.
We see in one paragraph the mention of the invasion of Panama by the United States. Certainly not an event which bestows any bragging rights on us. Then we notice the President at the time, George Bush, and we more clearly understand the abominable machinations of this our day in the whirlwind of our own King George, and his invasion theories. Now we're slaughtering Iraqi private citizens who drive thru our roadblocks in Iraq.
Also the invasion occurred before the Panamanians could consumate a deal with Japan to build another canal, which would have given Japan all the construction rights, or more to the point, would have deprived many U.S. corporations of the business.
Nothing is mentioned of the "School of The Americas" located in the Canal Zone, nor of the U.S. Southern Command's tropical warfare training center, where students learned techniques in interrogation and covert operational skills, military tactics, and so forth. Today in accusing the rest of the world of the same thing, we call it "terrorism training".
Some references: (David McCullough, The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal 1870-1914; William Friar, Portrait of the Panama Canal: From Construction to the Twenty-First Century; Graham Greene, Conversations With The General; Peter Eisner, The Memoirs of Manuel Noriega, America's Prisoner; John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man; &c).
thanks for dialoguing!
kenn 1RmSchlHse
waysiderest@greenapple.com
23 maY2.005 AD
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.77.252 (talk • contribs) 23:11-23:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty etc 

message: South America is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can support the article with your vote. --Fenice 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I believe it would be useful to include the imports/exports of Panama somewhere on this page. Would someone please add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.12.183 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exports of Panama include bananas,shrimp, sugar, coffeee, and clothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.76.44 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imports and Exports of Panama 

message: The information from the website Guide to Panama is useful and could possibly be entered into this article, BUT there is no need for advertising. One reference of the website would be plenty in a reference section (or properly placed in-line citation). Also, the edits sound like a tour guide, not an encyclopedia, which is why I reverted them. It seems like I am not the only one who thinks that way because someone else reverted the edits a previous a time. - Dozenist talk 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This article could be expanded significantly through a fairly straightforward translation from the Wikipedia Español page. I'll go ahead and be bold and check back to see what you think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitano Tropical (talk • contribs) 21:57-21:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation from Wikipedia Español 

message: I have reviewed the "Economy" section in all country articles on Wikipedia; unfortunately, many of them have NPOV issues, and by my reading, this article is one of them.
Common issues with this section include:
*verbatim quotes from the CIA world factbook
*describing a country's economic policy as "sound", "unsound", "imprudent", etc.
*assuming a link between economic health and low inflation
*using expressions like "the GDP improved" (should be increased), "beneficial levels of inflation" (should be low levels of inflation), etc.
*postulating cause-effect relationships that seem controversial.
Issues in this specific article are:
*unsourced accusuations:
**"ineffective and fraught with corruption": says who? How do you measure a government's efficiency?
**"post-invasion governments prefer to protect the small wealthy class" unsourced accusation
**"most of these reforms [...] make life harder for the masses": how so? why are they still necessary then?
*a potentially controversial cause-effect relationship is described as a fact:
**"Globalization has done extensive damage": how do we know it wasn't something else that's to blame?
*opinions
**"huge but necessary reforms that are not easy": who says they're necessary? what are those reforms? what's difficult about them?
This note will stay up for a week before I'll make any further changes. Please feel free to be bold and fix the article yourself, though! I'll also be monitoring this discussion page, and will try answering any concerns.
If you want to discuss the entire project, you can do so on my talk page or at the talk page for this specific prject.
(Note: this is the first country page I'm trying this on, so please let me know what you think about the idea.)
RandomP 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section: NPOV 

message: Both of these edits were tried awhile ago, but have remained on this page.  . The wording seems a little to POV (pro-Columbian? anti-American? I'm not sure) without any sourcing. Any other thoughts/opinions? Thanks. Ufwuct 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seceding from Colombia

message: Carlos Antonio Mendoza and Federico Boyd seem to overlap or seem out of place, at least to a non-expert on the history of Panama. The dates seem to overlap for several presidents of this era. Were there multiple people claiming to be president at this time? If so, is there not some agreement among historians who was the de facto president for a given time period? To anyone who knows more about this subject, your expertise would be welcomed in helping to expand upon these articles. Thanks. Ufwuct 03:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Presidents of Panama

message: I removed the external link to panama-guide.com
This is a for-profit site run my a gentleman called don winner who has quite a reputation in Panama (www.noriegaville.com).
He also hijacked the Yahoo group APRECLA using his admin. rights to spam the group concerned about environmental issues with spam messages related to his PG-site.
I would recommend a site like www.thepanamanews.com   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott ingels2000 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link removed 

message: I think the documentary, "The Panama Deception" should be linked to at the bottom and/or mentioned in the article. The events it covers are highly significant.
In addition, I would like to see more coverage of Panamanian opinion on the events, at least a mention. The people affected most by those events would, after all, be the Panamanians. Kennard2 01:40-01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link/ History Section suggestion 

message: This Panama article, as it appeared on Friday December 1, 2006, indicated that Panama was the "most developed" country in Central America. This is, surely, at least an uncertain claim. On the basis of GDP this is simply mistaken as Costa Rica enjoys a GDP nearly twice the Panama level. If not on the basis of GDP, then by what measure ? Literacy? Mortality? ???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.80.246.204 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Highest increase in Latin America is also incorrect. Comparing it to Central America would be just unneccesary. GDP and other facts should be taken, but nothing would really help. --70.187.163.141 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  GDP is based on old statistics (2005 I believe), so let's see first what the actual numbers are... unless, of course, you guys are from another part of Central America (Costa Rica anyone?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.108.35.12 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panama "Development" 

message: The photo of a "traditional Afro-Caribbean building" is actually a shot from an entirely fake (as in, none are original buildings) tourist attraction in Panama City. It may reflect traditional style, but it's not a traditional building.
The Baha'i Temple does not overlook the Canal--it's actually several miles (at least five, I'd say) away from the Canal and is outside the former Canal Zone.
It would probably be good to mention that not only is the balboa fixed to the US dollar, but that the US dollar is, in fact, legal tender in Panama. Panama does not print its own paper money, but uses US dollars. Panama does mint its own coins, which are the same size, weight, and mineral composition as the equivalent US denominations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.4.140 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buildings, money

message: In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Central America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Central America whose scope would include Panama. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject