Talk:History of Panama

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Panama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PanamaWikipedia:WikiProject PanamaTemplate:WikiProject PanamaPanama articles

Central America

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles

Latin America

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sokeefe19. Peer reviewers: Jmpfer04, Rchamberlin20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post

Biased in favour of U.S., particularly with respect to invasion (the word is not mentioned). Rewrite for more NPOV? --Daniel C. Boyer

ALMOST EVERY history page in Wikipedia is rediculously partisan in favour of US empire, apart from those that have undergone radical change from their original versions. Then again this not surprising when you consider that they are all based on articles writen by the CIA! I don't know whose bright idea this was, but it makes the writing of a pages about the history and politics of any given country an uphill struggle in removing the propaganda, misdirection and outright lies on every CIA written page AW

I can't tell you what much I agree with you. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:40 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia biased in favor of the "U.S. Empire," that's rich. I'd have to say the opposite.

And I gotta say it's funny how Noriega's a bad, dictatorial guy when he's giving us some support in the Contra War, but when we kick his ass out it's just another eeeevil CIA plot (chronicled in the CIA's pages of lies) Trey Stone 09:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree: the piece comes off as very anti-U.S. Not a word is said about the economic benefits that the U.S. relationship brought to the country: Nicaragua was a serious alternative for an Atlantic-Pacific canal. Financed and engineered by the United States, the canal is a permanent source of income for this country. At the end of a 99-year lease the U.S. turned over the canal and associated canal zone - complete with an airport, paved roads, power plants, medical facilities, houses, office buildings, and various other improvements worth many millions of U.S. dollars (an expense for which the United States requested no compensation) - and the only benefit the U.S. still gets from the relationship is that its government ships cross the canal at half price. Durova 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be significantly more citations in the article. The first footnote citation on the whole page is in the Royal Audiencia of Panama section and it's citing another wikipedia article on the Act of Union. Sokeefe19 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of some of the other comments here, I would also say that at least some of the article is biased in favor of the US. This is particularly evident in the section on the Panama Canal where the foreign perspectives of the US and France is given clear priority while a Panamanian POV is neglected. Sokeefe19 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try editing this article to bring it up in terms of quality and hopefully take off that years old "in need of a rewrite" pin. Here are some of the sources I'm thinking about using. Anyone have any thoughts on them?

"A Two-Year Siege of the Noriega Regime." The New York Times. May 09, 1989. Accessed February 21, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/10/world/a-two-year-siege-of-the-noriega-regime.html

"Bidlack Treaty (Treaty of New Granada, 1846)." Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. . Encyclopedia.com. (February 21, 2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bidlack-treaty-treaty-new-granada-1846

"Gran Colombia." Encyclopædia Britannica. March 20, 2012. Accessed February 21, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/place/Gran-Colombia

Harding, Robert C. The history of Panama. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006.

"The Panama Canal and the Torrijos-Carter Treaties." History.state.gov. Accessed February 21, 2017. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/panama-canal

I will have to find that New York Times article in another database.

Sokeefe19 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are some good ideas for improving the sources used for this article. Katherine.Holt (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more ideas: The April 2016 issue of the journal Environmental History focuses on the Panama Canal. Katherine.Holt (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Torrijos

I find it very interesting that the word "death" is used instead of "murder" or "assassination" to describe the end of Torrijos. RanDomino

interesting, but you have to agree "muerto es muerto" is correct

Rebuilding Democracy?

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)[reply]

Post 1500s

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)[reply]

Done! J. Peterka 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacks before Colombus

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)[reply]

Rewriting

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castelauro (talk • contribs) 05:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boobs of commerce

Is anyone editing this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.128.69 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two historical issues

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castelauro (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

Future Plans

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Peer Review

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]