Talk:Panama/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Noriega 2 History 3 Causes of the invasion 4 Map 4.1 Amateur Night in Dixie 4.2 Map detail 4.3 Color contrast 4.4 Full versions 4.5 Decorative font 4.6 More about the maps 4.7 WikiProject Maps 4.8 Map revisited 5 Latest external links 6 Treaty etc 7 Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board 8 Improvement Drive 9 Imports and Exports of Panama 10 Geography: North or South America? 11 Recent edits 12 Translation from Wikipedia Español 13 Economy section: NPOV 14 Seceding from Colombia 15 Order of Presidents of Panama 16 link removed 17 Link/ History Section suggestion 18 Panama "Development" 19 Buildings, money 20 Proposed WikiProject

Noriega

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)

History

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)

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)

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)

Again I reverted the edits which were very close to or identical with those referred to in the previous remark. If whoever is trying to make these edits is serious about the hsitorical record, they should go to the relevant History article and put in whatever historical facts they can document. CSTAR 20:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Causes of the invasion

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)

Map

The new map looks much better. If people want a different map bring your concerns here, don't start an edit war, SqueakBox 17:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

If you want the map in png for mat put in that format the softwear to do this availible on windows macs and linux so there is no reason why you should not be able to do thisGeni 12:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes from house-style maps should be regarded as a policy issue and should not occur unilaterally on an ad-hoc basis. As a responsible editor you should make sure that there is a consensus to completely change the house style to this blocky amateur looking map. I suggest that the best place to try to achieve this consensus is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries. You should also ensure that you do so in the correct format. Gifs should not be uploaded to Wikipedia except in exceptional circumstances see Wikipedia:Uploading images. Jooler 16:56-17:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you please refer me to the place in the policy which says that these CIA maps are "house-style"? Why are they not used for developed countries? Is it just the Third World who have to use these ugly maps? Also, why is less information better than more information? Thanks. Guettarda 17:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The style of of map used by Wikipedia articles and whether the CIA maps are official or de facto house style and should be replaced can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps Jooler 17:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

argument by assertion logical fallacy. wikiprojects are not in a position to set policyGeni 19:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's the woundful thing about wikipedia if you don't like the image format you can chage it. simply download the image on onto your computer and make the chages then reupload it. I don't think the maps look amiture or blocky (and I suspect I have spent A lot more time looking at them than you have)Geni 19:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I've noted on your talk page, this is a change which potentially effects every country article on Wikipedia. I think it is unwise to make unilateral changes to the style of map in this way. We don't want to get into a situatuation where each country is using a completely different style of map. Establishing policy on issues like style are precisely what WikiProjects are for. Jooler 21:48-21:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No it won't affect every country, Jooler. I have absolutely no intention of replacing the excellent maps at Nicaragua or Geography of Costa Rica (are they house style?). They are far more comprehensive than anything that I could create using an OMC map. Nor do I think it likely that I shall create 190+ country maps. It's fun to make the maps, but it does take quite a bit of time. Kelisi 04:01-04:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It effects 20 at most (I think User:Kelisi only made maps for 20) see below for your next argument being blown out of the water. The styles of the maps are pretty simular to the cia maps anyway (I nicked the pallet from them).Wikipedia:WikiProject does not mention establishing policy as the perpose of wikiprojectsGeni 23:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And in most cases, I nicked the towns from the CIA maps, and then added more. Kelisi 04:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps: A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions about how we might standardize the process of creating geographical maps. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. But if you are thinking of creating map graphics and aren't sure about the most appropriate style, color, or labelling to use, you may find these suggestions to be helpful. Nothing in the talk pages there gets anywhere close to establishing policy. More importantly, the page discusses what to do what creating maps, colour palettes, etc. Nothing about: USE CIA MAPS ONLY. Sorry, but you are totally off base here. In addition, there are many countries which do not use these maps. Please extend your revert war to United States, Canada, Nicaragua, South Africa the Philippines and India (those that I have found so far - not a systematic search). Guettarda 23:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I find that the new map looks very unprofessional. This is due to the lack of consistent font, extreme pixilation, and other features which generally make it look like an early 90's video game. While the CIA maps are not perfect, they are also very clean and functional. More data is sometimes not better. Burgundavia 08:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Amateur Night in Dixie

All questions of policy aside, Jaysus, are the new maps ugly. Replacing perfectly good maps with Amateur Night in Dixie just because you can is pretty bad. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you find ugly about them?Geni 00:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You mean besides the garish colors when reduced, the mixed-bag of fonts for identifying labels, the labels strewn randomly across and squeezed onto the map, and the amateur-looking bit-map outlines of the map itself? Not a thing, really.

This is clearly a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix". --Calton | Talk 07:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can alter the colours. I think the different fonts are quite a nice way of showing that you are laberling different thingsGeni 11:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well it looks as if there is definitely not a policy to have a uniform map, and if such a policy were proposed it would probably provoke strong arguments that would go much deeper than just maps. Given there is no policy I think we should deal with each map as a separate issue to be discussed in it's own talk page. I spotted the edit war because I watched Honduras and Guatemala, so I might want a say on those countries but not necessarily those of any other country. Though I am watching what goes on, obviously, after the edit wars. --SqueakBox 01:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

let's see both maps and try to decide, and give the new map a chance. I don't like Jooler's reverts any more than I liked Kelisi's. --SqueakBox 02:18-02:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. I am preventing tantamount vandalism here and restoring the status-quo. The Kelisi maps are clearly inferior. Carlton has got it spot on. As to policy, do you really think we should a have a host of inferior quality maps replacing all CIA maps? The use of CIA maps is a de facto standard in the absence of specific policy on better quality maps. Unilaterally replacing these maps ad-hoc on dozens of pages goes against the wiki-way. The issue should have been discussed somewhere before Kelisi went about replacing the readable and professional looking CIA maps with his amateur, blocky, flat, four colour maps, with hideous unreadable overlapping fonts and garish colour scheme, which are also using Compuserve's .GIF format and not the Wikipedia standard .png format. That is policy. One other point, you should not address the user to "click to enlarge" that is also policy. I should also point out that the CIA map is the map hosted on the WikiMedia Commons (Panama). Jooler 08:19-08:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you think it would take me more than a minute to put the colour modifed Kelisi maps on commons? Colours can be and have been altered as can the image format.btw there were far more thn four "Unilaterally replacing these maps ad-hoc on dozens of pages" is exactly the wikiway or have you forgoten about Wikipedia:Be Bold? btw there were far more than four colours on the maps originalyGeni 11:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Map detail

When a map with more detail than the CIA map is available, I think it should be used, either instead of, or in addition to the CIA map.--Patrick 10:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If anyone of you kindly add all the extra details (cities, rivers, geological features ...) to the CIA maps in a very professional way, I'll say get rid of these ugly Kelisi maps. Otherwise, you know what I mean. -- Toytoy 14:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Color contrast

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)

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)

Perhaps a darker green.--Patrick 12:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

done. I have also chaged the file to png format.Geni 13:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That is much better.--Patrick 13:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the black edges of the green-on-white letters should also be used with the green-on-light-blue and the white-on-light-blue. By itself I prefer light blue to dark blue.--Patrick 11:23-11:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

trickyGeni 11:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Full versions

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)

My comments refer to the full versions.--Patrick 11:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decorative font

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)

I rather like it since it shows that different types of things are being labeled. Geni 11:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More about the maps

I think the third one, ie the non CIA with light blue water is the best of the 3; it makes the CIA map look really lacking in detail. --SqueakBox 14:24, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's missing a "B" from "Bocas del Toro" (or "Ocas del Toro). Guettarda 15:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? What about the horrible blockiness. They don't look very professional like that. They are pure ugly. Jooler

I really value the extra detail. Can you not try to do something about the blockiness? I think I also like the idea that we do our own maps (as wikipedia) rather than relying on the CIA maps, as wikipedia just copying other open sourcve material is a pretty pointless exercise I think. They should be a communal construction. Though I don't feel capable of helping myself those who are capable should address the technical issues (blockiness, etc), then we can all judge. I now firmly believe this issue should be discussed page by page. Putting a lot of effort into map construction could certainly make for a much better situation than the majority of countries have right now. --SqueakBox 17:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection over the blockiness. I know the map shall look more "professional" if we anti-aliase the lines. But that's not an issue here. As a knowledge seeker, I prefer details. Unless Someone can prove that Kelisi maps are out of date or containing misinformation, I'll use these pure ugly and unprofessional Kelisi maps (even without a color change).

So far as pixel resolution is not sacrificed, I actually prefer blockiness as it makes color change much easier. If your GIF or PNG images have a shared and content-defined color palette (land: green; sea: blue; border: black; text: white ...), you can load all images into Adobe Photoshop (or an equivalent) and batch replace all images' palettes in a few minutes. With anti-aliased images, you have no such luxury. A side benefit of blockiness is that it makes images marginally if not substantially smaller. -- Toytoy 14:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Detail is nice, but those maps are well beyond the pale in terms of being ugly and unprofessional looking. It is not a question of anti-aliasing, it is a question of a map having pixels the size of my head. The problem with being unprofessional is that any truly inquiring mind will regard them as likely to be inaccurate because they don't look like they were created by someone who knows what they were doing. I would highly prefer the less-informative CIA maps to these very dubious looking MS Paint maps. --Fastfission 03:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kelisi has promised new maps - he says he is working on them, and once done will post them on the relevant talk pages. Guettarda 16:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jooler has invited myself and several other admins to take a look at the maps, so here are my comments. Firstly, I have to say that there is nothing particularly sacred about the CIA maps - they were initially used for lack of anything better with an acceptable copyright status. In general, more information is better. Now, to the particularity of Kelisi's and Geni's versions of the maps: I like the indication of latitude and longitude on the borders of these maps - you would have no idea where in the world the CIA maps are depicting! I feel Kelisi's colour scheme is too garish, and there's no need to show all the neighbouring countries in different colour schemes, so Geni's scheme is preferable to me, though white on pale blue is difficult to read. I like the inclusion of rivers and sub-national administrative boundaries, both features which make these maps much more informative than the CIA one. One problem I can see is when placenames are positioned over provincial borders or rivers which can make reading them a little tricky - is it possible to position the text a little more precisely? -- Arwel 13:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Arwel on the acceptability of these maps. Thanks for some great work, Kelisi, and I hope you'll not take the comments on the color scheme as discouragement. These maps are in my opinion far better than the CIA ones. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kelisi has taken these maps to many different pages on the basis that it is the individual talk pages that needs to make the decisions one by one, --SqueakBox 15:11, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Maps

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)

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)

Map revisited

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 commented on 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).

Latest external links

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)

Treaty etc

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)

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

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)

Imports and Exports of Panama

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)

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)

Geography: North or South America?

So, under which category would Panama be best organized in other wikipages? North America or South America? - Ancanus 07:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, geographically it is correct (I think) to include it in Central America or North America.

However, historically it had tighter links to South America by virtue of its use as a link for the gold traffic from Peru et al to Spain and then joining Gran Colombia after the independence from Spain. Links to Costa Rica and the rest of Central America and Mexico were never significant since they formed part of a diferent administrative region. Evidence of this is that the accents in speech are quite diferent and the food is not very similar at all.

On the other hand, Panama has more similarities with Puerto Rico, Cuba and Dominican culture than to any other region - perhaps excepting Colombia. Moronguero 17:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

seriously, I think ya should mentionworldwar two —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.180.201 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Panama is transcontinental, the Canal divides South from North America. So, about half Panama is North America, and the other half, South. Historically, it belongs to South America; geographically, Central America. So its on both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.55.132 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know how to work on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.55.132 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Panama would be considered in South America because it is connected to Colombia which is in South America. Plus it is nearly not as close to North America than it is South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.66.101 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

• Simply for the purpose of consensus building, I'd like to second Dozenist's comments and point to two relevant Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and neutral point of view. I hope that each editor of this article will read these policies and keep them in mind when editing. - Jersyko·talk 22:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation from Wikipedia Español

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) -Gitano Tropical 19:35-19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Economy section: NPOV

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)

Seceding from Colombia

Both of these edits were tried awhile ago, but have remained on this page. [1] [2]. 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)

• Even a dumb clearly seems that it was because of USA interests that Panana became independent. I would like to see Colombian opinions concerning the existance of this puppet state. --Pedro 20:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of Presidents of Panama

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)

link removed

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)

Link/ History Section suggestion

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)

Panama "Development"

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)

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)

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)

Buildings, money

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)

Proposed WikiProject

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)