Talk:History of the Panama Canal

History of the Panama Canal was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 4, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
June 7, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Note

I created this by splitting off from Panama Canal, because it was getting huge, and because it's an epic story in its own right. It still needs a fair bit of work, though; it's kind of patchy. I'll have a go, but all contributions of course welcome! — Johantheghost 15:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Workers

We really need to add something about the people who built the canal -- where they came from, how they were treated, etc. Particularly how they were paid based on skin colour. -- Johantheghost 11:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Your Health

You've anticipated me. I was just about to do something on the disease issues, the Fr effort predating the work of Finlay, Reed et al. on the mosquito vector. I don't know enough about it to judge how large deLépinay's locks would/might have been; I've N actually read McCullough. (I relied on the TV doc & a quick look at the book.) Guess I am a bit of a deL cheeleader, & maybe DM was, too; it sounded like he thought (& I, too) deL got it right. Timing, sometimes, is crucial. It's EZ to forget how interconnected things can be. Most histories will say the Fr project foundered on malaria & Gorgas cleaned it out, but omit the science needed before Gorgas knew to do it, forgetting we know, but they didn't.

Thinking of links, have you seen James Burke's Connections & The Day the Universe Changed? They're quite remarkable for showing how things you'd never expect tie together. (They've both been made into shows for Discovery; write & demand they rebroadcast!)

Let me also say, bravo. I first encountered the Nicaragua Canal in S. M. Stirling, & the Mex Canal in Heinlein, so it's terrific to see them treated seriously here. Trekphiler 13:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Panama Canal for response. — Johantheghost 12:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I rewrote "devestated Pacific Fleet" (it's a myth; at best, an exaggeration), & added the subs remark, for which I rely on Blair's Silent Victory; I'd source it, but couldn't quite see a separate heading for it alone. Trekphiler 13:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; I changed submarines to being "a major" contributor, since I think giving them the main credit — over battleships, fighting men, nukes, etc. — would be rather controversial. I think it would be better if you did cite your source on the subs if possible. Cheers! Johantheghost 13:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp-ctc-panama-canal-opens.jpg

Image:Stamp-ctc-panama-canal-opens.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a great many issues that may need to be addressed. The first and most noticable of these problems is sourcing; most of the article is barely sourced at all, including a great many statistics that must be referenced. If someone takes responsibility for this problem and begins to fix it then I will work with them to deal with the citation issue and the other problems that beset this article, which include poor prose and incorrect formatting. I will check back and if progress is being made and issues are being addressed, then work can continue. If no one has come forward in the next seven days however, this article will be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No work in the last week, this has been delisted from GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Revolution

Not sure what is meant by no citations? The section was completly lacking in citations before I started, and I added about half a dozen. As to NPOV, I'm not really sure what the POV I insterted was? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To document what we're talking about here: it's my reversion of your edits, represented by this [1]diff.

Let's start with the first block of diffs, in the section dealing with the Nicaragua canal option. I have no objection to your changes here.

Next, the section dealing with the Panama revolution - again, not much to object to, except for a few misspellings (e.g. "beliving," "arangements." Also, you switch back and forth between British and American spellings - "favourable/favorable" in this same section. Let's stick to American spellings; I don't have any particular prejudice against the British spellings, but since the article seems to have been created with American spellings, and the topic is an American achievement.... (And, yes, I know that some British spellings appear in the version as rolled-back by me; we can clean those up later.)

Just a side note on the "Panama Revolution" section: I would leave the wikilink to gunboat diplomacy in, somehow - this was certainly an instance of such.

Finally, the section on the American takeover: the points about Panamanians being unhappy with the ceremony and the deeper meaning of the phrase "make the dirt fly" need citations. Without them, they seem to give the passage an overtly anti-American slant. (There is some existing text in the same section that suffers from the same problem; again, the needed citations should clean that up as well.)

Anyway: as you can see, my objections relate mainly to form, not content, and the extent of changes in such a short time. I think we can work this out fairly quickly and easily. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some general article feedback

Just read this article for the first time - I think it's generally very solid.

I have two suggestions in case there is someone working on this with time to do it. There are two very important storylines in the construction of the canal which are either not mentioned or glossed over - two factors that turned the tide for the American effort to overcome the difficulties that threatened to make it impossible. First - and this is totally lacking - is the role of railroad technology. The achievement of carting away so much earth is mentioned in the article, but no mention of how it was done (it was an insurmountable task until the project was re-conceived as a rail project - the largest in history at the time). Second, the project was going nowhere until the mosquito problem was brought under control. The identification of mosquitoes as the source of malaria, and the superhuman efforts at mosquito eradication, was a key turning point and enabled the project to finally attract and retain the work force needed. The problems in recruiting are mentioned, and the death count - but no mention of how (save for a Health section that is empty but for a link). Reading this article, it sounds like the overcoming of drunkenness by build rec centers was a more important factor than controlling malaria, a key differentiator of the US approach. Kgdickey (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citation

The entire french conception section does not cite any sources.

Furthermore the following section begs an obvious question:

"His enthusiastic leadership, coupled with his reputation as the man who had brought the Suez project to a successful conclusion, persuaded speculators and ordinary citizens to invest in the scheme, ultimately to the level of almost $400 million"

Is the $400 million measured in its equivalent value in modern dollars or in the value of dollars in the period? National currency also is not specified, could be French or US dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.130.68 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States invasion of Panama in 1989

Can someone please add to canal history a good paragraph of United States invasion of Panama ? Thanks. 213.221.17.130 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal Company

"Panama Canal Company" redirects here yet it is not even specifically mentioned. It warrants an article itself as it owned assets associated with the canal beyond obvious operation of the canal itself. A 1952 diagram of its three divisions illustrates the scope. It at least needs some coverage within the "History" article. Palmeira (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooks the completion of the locks for Panamax class

See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax

Needs updating to reflect the Panamax expansion is completed, e.g.,

With this expansion, the Panama Canal was intended to handle vessels with a length up to 1201 feet and cargo capacity up to 13,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU); previously it could handle vessels less than about 5,000 TEU. The New Panamax standard was sought in an attempt to accommodate ships of almost 120,000 DWT.

Additionally, should note that the engineering in the Panamax expansion is unproven at best. See, e.g.,

The New Panama Canal: A Risky Bet http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/world/americas/panama-canal.html

With expansion, Panama Canal makes a troubled bet on its future The Seattle Times-Jun 23, 2016 http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/with-expansion-panama-canal-makes-a-troubled-bet-on-its-future/

and many additional investigative news articles to the same effect. Ocdcntx (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Panama Canal. 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/20081218155312/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/panama.canal/stories/operation/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/panama.canal/stories/operation/

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) 16:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the Panama Canal. 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) 19:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

history from the Panama Canal Authority

See the updated history of the construction of the Panama Canal on the Panama Canal Authority website.

BTW, click here for articles that still have (presumably non-working) links to the old Panama Canal Authority website; click here for articles that have links to the re-organized Panama Canal Authority website. Fabrickator (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]