Talk:Manuel Noriega

Pictures?

I noticed the only picture we have of him is a mug shoot. Why dont we have pictures of him as him when he was dictator or in Military clothes? Spongie555 (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Panama Canal Treaty was signed by President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian Dictator Omar Torrijos on 7 September 1977, not 1980.

The opposition "National Civic Crusade" was created in 1987, not 1981. It was established after COL Roberto Diaz, the former number two officer in the Panama Defense Forces, denounced the Noriega regime.

PRD is the Democratic Revolutionary Party.

Carlos Duque was not the publisher of La Estrella de Panama. The publisher was Tomas Altamirano Duque.

I would not label Noriega a "politician." He was a dictator and military officer.

17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have found a good picture of General Manuel Noriega, it is a picture of the portrait they found at his complex just after the invasion. I have uploaded the picture to wikimedia so that it can be used in his article. (I put the picture below, in a template on how I believe we could improve this article).

The current picture, a mugshot, should not be the lead image. See WP:MUG.   Will Beback  talk  06:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Will, the problem is that we haven't been able to locate one that we know we can use. I'm not sure WP:MUG is applicable here. It doesn't show him in a false light since he is, in fact, incarcerated and has been for over two decades. Then, considering that an entire country was invaded in order to put him in jail, I really don't think that a mug shot is really going to damage his reputation. The picture in the example has dubious origins and should not be used unless we are certain. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are two main issues with using mugshots. First, they are usually unflattering, capturing the person on one of the worst days of their lives, often poorly groomed or clothed. We wouldn't use a photo of someone picking their nose or sneezing as their main photo, no matter how accurate those pictures may be. Second, they have the effect of characterizing the person foremost as a convict. The lead says

• Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno ... is a Panamanian politician and soldier. He was military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989.

It doesn't say, "Noriega is a convicted drug trafficker". That comes later, in context. I'd support keeping the photo in the article, but moving it to the section on his arrest. If need be we can leave the box empty until we find an appropriate replacement.   Will Beback  talk  09:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• The leade can easily be changed :) As for the "we don't use mug shots", the primary pic in the Rush Limbaugh article is his mug shot and it is just cropped, which is something we could consider doing here. But there was discussion over there about how unflattering the candid photo used in the article was. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cropping is an option, though the basic picture here is significantly lower quality than the Limbaugh picture.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is lower quality, however we know it is available for use. I do not think we should be even considering the other one when we can't establish the origin. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

This thread is for discussions of improvements.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have found some information regarding to the titles the national assembly of panama (which he controlled) gave him, thus I propose we edit the article like this:

Maximum Leader Manuel Noriega
File:General Manuel Noriega.jpg
Portrait of General Manuel Noriega
Maximum Leader of National Liberation
In office December 15, 1989 – December 20, 1989 (&100000000000000000000000 years, &100000000000000050000005 days)
Preceded by	Office Created
Succeeded by	Office Abolished
Military leader of Panama
In office August 12, 1983 – December 15, 1989 (&100000000000000060000006 years, &10000000000000125000000125 days)
President	Ricardo de la Espriella Jorge Illueca Nicolás Ardito Barletta Vallarino Eric Arturo Delvalle Manuel Solís Francisco Rodríguez
Preceded by	Rubén Darío Paredes
Succeeded by	Guillermo Endara (as President of Panama)
Personal details
Born	(1934-02-11) February 11, 1934 Panama City, Panamá Republic of Panama
Alma mater	Chorrillos Military School School of the Americas

By doing so we will include more information regarding the titles he obtained, and how he took total power just a few days prior he was deposed. Do you guys agree about this changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajatty (talk • contribs)

Like many issues, it comes down to sources. What are the sources for his titles and his assumption of total power?   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this information here: Eytan Gilboa, "The Panama Invasion Revisited: Lessons for the Use of Force in the Post Cold War Era," Political Science Quarterly, (v110 n4), p539." http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gilboa.htm

A quote from the text: "Noriega continued to provoke the United States and particularly to harass the American armed forces in Panama. On 15 December 1989, the Panamanian National assembly appointed Noriega chief of the government and "maximum leader of national liberation." The assembly also declared Panama to be in a state of war with the United States. The departure of Noriega seemed to be delayed indefinitely. After the Giroldi fiasco, a PDF coup was unlikely, and Panamanians were tired and weak."

Also, we can compare the article in English with the article in Spanish, which includes his titles and reference from where they obtained the information: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega If we scroll to the end of the article, we can see the different titles he hold.

Also, from the other wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Leader We know that Manuel Noriega had the title of Maximum Leader (there is a reference for that in that article as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajatty (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Do we really need to concern ourselves with a title he made up for himself for 5 days? And the title in the info box ("Highest Chief of Panamanian State") doesn't match the source ("maximum leader of national liberation"). Niteshift36 (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

True, the problem was translation, I took the title which was mentioned in the Spanish wikipedia article, and translated it to English, but we can keep it to "Maximum Leader of National Liberation". And it is important, because even though it was only for 5 days, it implied he formalized his power over Panama, as before he has been de facto leader (there were a number of presidents who were the head of state), however at that point, when he got the title, he was the de jure head of state. That was the point in which he ultimately achieved total power over the government. Also, it was this event that finally ruled out all other non-militaristic methods to remove Noriega from his post (all the missions coded Panama 1 through Panama 5, which failed). For example, making the actual president of Panama fire Noriega, which happened once, but failed due to Noriega making some political manipulations. Thus the fact that he became de jure head of state is important to know, as that forced the military intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajatty (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I know what went on. I was there before, during and after the invasion. Aside from some blabbing on the TV and Noriega banging a machete during a speech, nobody cared about hsi new title because nothing really changed. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I have changed his title to "Maximum Leader of National Liberation", and I think that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to ensure all the facts are shown, so if he got de jure political power, even if it was for 5 days, we should show it so that people that read this article are informed. I have also shown the references, so if there are no further comments regarding that issue in a few days, I will proceed and update the article.--Kajatty (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• The real joke here is that he already had all the power. There was nothing new. He had already nullified the elections and refused to transfer power. You can't refuse to transfer what you don't have, can you? Honestly, I don't think it should be in the info box at all. It should just be mentioned in the body of the text. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Demonising reports in US media

“	A singularly inept propaganda offensive...With stunning overkill, for more than a week, the American military demeaned and derided the fallen despot. A US General went on television to assure the world that Noriega practised Voodoo with animal entrails and buckets of blood...wore red underwear to ward off the evil eye and cavorted with his mistress in a mirror-walled bedroom of his yacht. We were told breathlessly that Noriega kept a witch's diary, had a stash of pornography and displayed a portrait of Adolf Hitler.	”
—Leon Daniel, January 5

I found this quote, which I think very efficiently summarising some of the many claims that the US war machine made in American media to demonise Noriega - and think it is relevant to the article, but one editor seems to disagree and removed it - so rather than editwar, I figured I would come here to the talkpage. If we can find another quote that references 5-6 different demonising stories told in mass media over the days when it mattered...I'm all for using it instead. But I think it's a niche that's left empty right now without the quote - and it does help balance the article which currently seems to just take US claims at face value and not point to some of the sillier claims that were also made. Scaledoorstoclimb (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• First, the author is simply a report/editor at UPI. This is an opinion piece. If he were reporting, that would be one thing, but he is editorializing and that is a problem. Just being a reporter doesn't make him any sort of expert that we should be quoting. Second, you've changed what the source is. First you said it was the Bryan Times, now you cite it as UPI. Third, putting this as a block quote highlights it, giving it more weight than we should be giving a reporter who decided to write an opinion piece. If he were an expert on propaganda or diplomacy, it might be arguable that his opinion should carry more weight. He wasn't an expert that I can find. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The source could be listed as UPI, for whom Leon Daniel wrote the piece, or Bryan Times which ran it (along with other papers which run UPI stories) - both are "correct". How about if we removed the first part of the quote, that would seem to nix the "editorializing" concern - and leave it as a listing of facts? Scaledoorstoclimb (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's still just an editorial by a reporter. Nothing more. Why should his opinion be showcased any more than that of any reporter who decides that he has an opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)