Jump to content

Talk:Manuel Noriega/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

CIA claims

I do not have time to do a complete good article review, but the article's writing on Noriega's involvement with the CIA has a number of contradictions and gaps. For instance, the article cites Mark Tran's article in the Guardian for the claim that Noriega's relationship with the CIA 'became contractual' in 1967. Tran's article does not say that. The only mention of 1967 in the article is that Noriega "received intelligence and counterintelligence training at the School of the Americas at Fort Gulick, Panama, in 1967."

In the same sentence, the article says that Noriega worked with the CIA "from the late 1950s until the 1980s," again citing Tran's article. Tran's article does not mention the 1950s either. It does say that "Noriega was recruited as a CIA informant while studying at a military academy in Peru," which would have been in the 1950s. Tran's article gives no source for this; like several other statements in Tran's article, it is problematical. (another example of Tran's problems: he states that Noriega 'was to remain on the CIA payroll until February 1988." No source for this claim either, which contradicts testimony at Noriega's trial that covered U.S. payments to Noriega in detail.)

Following this, the article cites an Atlantic article as the source for the claim that "A report after Noriega's death suggested that his first encounter with the CIA was when he offered to give them information on leftist student groups." The article actually says "Noriega got involved with the U.S. at a young age, volunteering to inform on leftist students during the Eisenhower administration." It does not say Noriega was working for the CIA at that point.

The CIA is not the only intelligence agency in the United States, and it was not the only part of the U.S. government paying Noriega; government testimony at Noriega's trial stated that a little more than half of the $322,000 the U.S. paid Noriega was paid by the U.S. Army [1] In general, I think this part of the article is still far from good article status.

I have questions about other parts and sources in the article as well. Several claims from a book by Javier Galván are incorporated in the article. The book was published by McFarland, which is essentially a vanity publisher. Better sourcing or confirmation of this material would be a good idea. Rgr09 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rgr09: I'll take a look at the issues you raised: it's quite possible that stuff got shifted around when the article was recently at ITN. Your point about Galvan is well taken, but I have tried to limit the use of that source: I haven't included most of his exceptional claims, and have not used him in any instance where he is contradicted by any other source in the article. Vanamonde (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Point by point response:
  • The "contractual in 1967" is plain incorrect, and I've removed it. Not sure how it slipped in.
  • Tran does not say that he was recruited in the 1950s, but he says he was recruited during an event in the 1950s, which is quite sufficient.
  • The point about first contact not being specified is well taken: modified to U.S. intelligence.
  • Tran's article would generally be considered a reliable source; and a newspaper article does not usually cite sources. What the U.S. government said during the trial, on the other hand, is not. Unless a contradictory source is found, there is no problem here.
  • Likewise, the article does not say that the CIA paid him 322,000 dollars: it says the U.S. govt. did. No problem here.
  • I have been trying to find other sources that go into the details of Noriega's life before his trials. They are very difficult to find. If you wish to help me find such, you are more than welcome.
@Rgr09: Unless you want to find sources contradicting the other material that you have flagged, there isn't much else to do here. Vanamonde (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I've only briefly fact-checked the flag about the February 1988 date. The New York Times appears to contradicts Tran on it: [1] -Location (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The increasing amount of material cited to Andrew Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair should also be checked. WP:INTEXT attribution may be required for those claims that run up against WP:REDFLAG. Like Cockburn's brother and sister-in-law, their book seems to be very sympathetic to the allegations made by Alfred W. McCoy and Gary Webb without much weight given to the official investigations of those charges. -Location (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Location: The source struck me as tending towards the sensational as well: that is why the only sentence for which that is the only source, for which in-text attribution is not provided, is the relatively uncontroversial "One of the witnesses in the trial was Floyd Carlton, who had previously flown shipments of drugs for Noriega.". Vanamonde (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I think there are quite a few citation to Whiteout that are not attributed to the authors. I'm not saying that everything needs to be, but I do think we need to take a closer look. The first two Ghits I get for Floyd Carlton are articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post which I think would be better sources. Regarding Noriega's trial, there is so much to discuss but the entire section seems built to imply some sort of cover-up or nefarious actions on the part of the US government. The prosecution's case is non-existent. -Location (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Johnston, Davis (19 January 1991). "U.S. Admits Payments to Noriega". New York Times. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

Sources for noriega

There are stacks of books on Noriega. Two that would be good sources for the article are:

  • Dinges, John (1991). Our man in Panama: the shrewd rise and brutal fall of Manuel Noriega. New York: Times Books/Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-1950-9.
  • Kempe, Frederick (1990). Divorcing the dictator: America's bungled affair with Noriega. New York: Putnam. ISBN 978-0-399-13517-0.

Both are by reliable journalists with at least a couple of years experience in Panama. Both books cover Noriega's entire life up until their publication dates. Dinges is on a CSPAN call-in show where he discusses his book, and CSPAN Booknotes has an hour long interview with Kempe on his book, worth a look.

The first thing Kempe discusses in his interview is why U.S. military intelligence recruited Noriega as a source in 1960. This is documented, or at least sourced, in the book. Military intelligence is DIA, not CIA. Tran's article in the Guardian and Ghosh's article in Time, and no doubt other articles as well, that say Noriega had been an "agent" for the CIA since the 1950s, are simply sloppy journalism. It is not safe to write an article on someone like Noriega just using newspaper articles off the internet. Inaccuracies will inevitably creep in. Rgr09 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Manuel Noriega/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Just so you know, Midnightblueowl, I'm done with your comments at the moment. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Early life and family

  • Done
  • Fixed
  • Reworded
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • Done
  • Linked
  • Done
  • If possible, it might be good to see some of the 'Family' related material moved into its own section. Having a statement like "All four members of his immediate family were alive at the time of his death" seems a little incongruous and out of place in a section mostly devoted to his early years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of one-paragraph sections, especially when the paragraph is so short. Also, his family is so tied in with his early life...since that sentence sounded incongruous, I've moved it into the death section.
  • Done
  • Done
  • "Noriega's mother has been variously described as a cook or a laundress, while his father was an accountant. Neither had a lengthy presence in his life: his mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child. Noriega was brought up by a godmother[2][8][9] in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén.[10] Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was in fact the illegitimate son of his father, Ricaurte Noriega, and his father's domestic worker, whose family name was Moreno.[10][8]" I think that a rewrite would work well here. For instance we mention his mother and father and describe their professions a sentence before giving their names. Really we would want to see their names at the very first mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done for the father, mother's name unknown
  • "During his time in the Socialist youth group he took part in protests, as well as authoring articles criticizing the U.S. presence in Panama." - definitely worth placing a citation at the end of this particular sentence as the next sentence moves on to quite a different topic. I would also strongly recommend spitting the paragraph at this point; it is quite long and this is the ideal place to divide it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • " During his time in Instituto Nacional he met his older brother Luis, also a student at the school. Manuel had not previously met his siblings. Luis was a socialist activist, and introduced Manuel to politics, including recruiting him into the Socialist party's youth wing. At some point in school Manuel began living with his brother.[" I'm wondering if we could slim this down a little bit by merging some of the very short sentences. For example "Noriega had not previously met his siblings, and it was at the Instituto Nacional that he first met his older brother Luis, who also studied there. Manuel began living with Luis, who introduced him to politics and recruited him into the Socialist Party's youth wing." Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded
  • Done
  • Done
  • "The U.S. also paid Noriega $10.70 payment in 1955, which would be the first of many payments he would receive for his activities" - this could be tied in with the previous sentence quite easily, perhaps after a semi-colon. It also could be rid of the "also". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • "After graduating from the Instituto Nacional, Noriega won a scholarship to Chorrillos Military School in the Peruvian capital of Lima, with the help of Luis, who had by then received a position in the Panamanian embassy in Peru.[18][19][13] He had previously harboured intentions of becoming a doctor"... Why do we mention the desire to become a doctor after the Peruvian scholarship given that it occurred first? Best to rearrange these sentences so that it better matches the chronology of events. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • "Noriega married Felicidad Sieiro de Noriega, whom he had met in the 1960s, and the couple had three daughters" - how about "In the 1960s, Noriega met Felicidad Sieiro de Noriega; they later married and had three daughters". That way we place their meeting (which happened first) at the start of the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Trying to avoid potential proseline issues by mixing up phrasing
  • Perhaps, but this is more topical, IMO

National Guard career

  • Could go either way, I guess, but I divided it finally based on his contacts: it was Luiz who got him into Peru, but it was military contacts that he left with.
  • Reworded: didn't like the possibility of parsing the sentence as the national guard being posted to Colon
  • Done
  • Seems right to me...isn't the rule of thumb something like "if each side could be a complete sentence, then colon"?
  • Done
  • Done
  • Added
  • Done
  • There's already a "Several" in the next sentence...
Fixed
  • Reworded, but can only separate them a little. Kinda hard to avoid without convoluted wording.
  • ack.
  • Done
  • Reworded
  • Done
  • Done
  • Well, it's an interesting tidbit: he wore the patch even after relations had soured: but its too small to go in the capture section. If you still don't like it, I'll remove it.
  • How about shifting the sentence ("would wear its crest on his military uniform, even until just before his capture") to "wore its crest on his military uniform for the rest of his career." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, done
  • It's a bit unclear, to be honest.
  • Done
  • Done
  • I think the present version flows a little easier.
  • "Noriega performed poorly in his classes in the school. However, in 1966 he received a promotion, and Torrijos found him a job as an intelligence officer in the "North Zone" of the National Guard" - Perhaps we could clip this down to "Despite a poor academic performance, in 1966 he received a promotion, with Torrijos appointing him as an intelligence officer in the National Guard's "North Zone"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The promotion and the intelligence job are distinct, though. reworded.
  • "Reports have suggested that he continued to pass intelligence to the U.S. during this period, about the activities of the plantation workers." Perhaps we need an extra word or two here, such as a "particularly" before the "about"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • " Noriega continued to have a close relationship with the School of the Americas during his Presidency, partly due to the latter having an outpost in Panama." Perhaps " Noriega contiretained a close relationship with the School of the Americas during his Presidency, partly due to the latter's Panamanian outpost." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded

1968 coup

  • Done
  • Done
  • Yes, done
  • "A power struggle followed between the various forces supporting the coup, and chiefly between Torrijos and Martínez.[" This one does not read too well. Initially I though it meant that the pro-coup forces were struggling against Torrijos and Martinez. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded: better?
  • Or the Greenday song ;)
  • Torrijos's. Fixed.
  • Done
  • In this case, I agree
  • Torrijos :) Fixed
  • "Arnulfo Arias had been elected president in 1968" - "was elected"? Also, do we know the month of the election; I think that that would really help here given that we are discussing the events of a single year. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded, will find the date soon as I get back to my copy of Dinges
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • "Noriega received a promotion to lieutenant colonel and was appointed chief of military intelligence by Torrijos" - Maybe we could bring in more active voice here by saying "Torrijos promoted Noriega to the position of lieutenant colonel and appointed him chief of military intelligence". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Reworded.

Head of intelligence

  • "He also kept files on a number of officials within the military, the government, and the judiciary, which would later allow him to blackmail them" - This could be trimmed back to something like "He also kept files on several officials within the military, the government, and the judiciary, later allowing him to blackmail them". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • "The relationship between Noriega and the U.S. intelligence services became regularized in the 1970s, when Noriega was on the CIA payroll;[39] the CIA made its first regular payment to Noriega in 1971", Again, we could do some trimming, particularly to avoid the three appearances of "Noriega" in one sentence. How about "Noriega's relationship with and the U.S. intelligence services was regularized during the 1970s, when he was on the CIA payroll;[39] the CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971." Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

Death of Torrijos

  • done
  • Same issue as elsewhere: we're not talking of a person taking power in an election or a popular uprising, but a hereditary authoritarian ruler. "Dictator" is a problem, agreed, but "President" is inadequate. Gone with "authoritarian ruler".
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • done
  • Strange as it may sound, that's what Dinges is saying, and in the contorted world of Central American politics, it's unsurprising.
  • Reworded
  • Done
  • "Torrijos died in a plane accident " - "plane crash" might work better, particularly as "accident" reappears later in the sentence and there is always the possibility that it was not an accident. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • welp
  • Fixed
  • Done
  • Paredes
  • Done

1984 election

  • "He also did not have a particular social or economic ideology. The idea he used to unify his supporters was military nationalism" - best to merge these somehow. Something like "Although lacking any particular social or economic ideology, Noriega unified his supporters around military nationalism". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded
  • Fair point. Rather tricky, because the occupation of these is unclear, as is their status as employees, and things like "goons" would not be neutral. gone with "administration" for now.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • The sentence beginning "Despite recognizing the flaws in the election process" would work better if pulled back from the very end of the sentence, perhaps placed before the sentence that currently precedes it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done

Drug and weapons operations

  • "In the early 1980s, a number of military conflicts began in Latin America, as guerrilla warfare broke out in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua" - trimming it back, we could have something like "During the early 1980s, civil wars broke out in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Done
  • "a groups of " - "group".
  • Fixed
  • Details provided, though it's really wordy
  • Done
  • Done
  • Linked when that specific phrase appears
  • Reworded, I believe it was not a single operation
  • Done
  • Done

Murder of Spafadora

  • If you are concerned with undue weight, perhaps we should look at retitling. I don't believe the content is too detailed here, as this period was fairly crucial to his career, and is highlighted by the sources.
  • Done
  • "he was a vocal critic of Noriega beginning in 1981 when Spadafora returned to Panama from Guatemala" - not sure that "beginning" is the right term here. How about "after returning to Panama from Guatemala in 1981, he became a vocal critic of Noriega"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded

1989 election

  • Done
  • "the U.S. began to suspect that Noriega was lending his support to other intelligence services, as well as to drug-trafficking groups" - this can be edited down a fair bit, perhaps "the U.S. suspected that Noriega was lending his support to other intelligence services and drug-trafficking groups". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded: the "began" is necessary to preserve the meaning, I think
  • "The elections of May 1989 were surrounded by controversy. A PRD-led coalition nominated Carlos Duque, publisher of the country's oldest newspaper, La Estrella de Panamá. " - nominated him for what? I'm guessing the Presidency, in which case we should mention "The presidential elections of May 1989". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Reworded: that was rather dramatic on my part
  • Done

Genesis

  • Done
  • Reworded
  • True
  • "servicemen were unarmed and in a private vehicle and that they attempted " - "and... and" is a bit repetitive. How about "servicemen were traveling unarmed in a private vehicle and that they attempted". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Done

Invasion

  • Is it necessary? To me, the flow of information is logical here. NVM, looking at the wrong section. Done.
  • "The U.S. invasion of Panama was launched on December 20, 1989" - "The U.S. invaded Panama on December 20, 1989"? Or perhaps, the longer "The U.S. launched its invasion of Panama on December 20, 1989", which has the advantage over the current wording of using active voice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Our article on the subject uses this form: see here.
  • "The U.S. forces targeted Noriega's personal private vehicles. " - ideally, a citation at the end of this sentence as the next sentence moves on to discuss something slightly different. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Duplicated.
  • Yes, done
  • It's the language used by the resolution; I've placed it in quotes.
  • "would cause half a billion U.S. dollars in damages, which the U.S. government would later help repair" - "would cause" to "caused", "would later help repair" to "later helped repair". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done

Capture

  • "has been reported to have taken shelter with several politicians that supported him" - "reportedly took shelter with several supportive politicians"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • The precise date seems unavailable, though I will look.

Prosecution in the United States

  • Done
  • "Complex legal maneuvering over whether Noriega could be tried after his detention as a prisoner of war, the admissibility of evidence and witnesses, and how to pay for Noriega's legal defense delayed the start of the trial until September 1991." - this sentence might work better if it starts with the latter part, for instance "The start of the trial was delayed until September 1991 due to complex legal maneuvering over whether Noriega could be tried after his detention as a prisoner of war, the admissibility of evidence and witnesses, and how to pay for Noriega's legal defense." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better, thanks.
  • "Noriega insisted that "the actual figure approached $10,000,000, and that he should be allowed to disclose the tasks he had performed for the United States". The district court held that the "information about the content of the discrete operations in which Noriega had engaged in exchange for the alleged payments was irrelevant to his defense". It ruled that "the tendency of such evidence to confuse the issues before the jury substantially outweighed any probative value it might have had."" - I think that we might have too much direct quotation here; wherever possible, change it to paraphrasing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Done
  • Done
  • Removed.

Prosecution in France

  • Perhaps this might work better as a sub-section of the previous section, which could in turn simply be called "Prosecution and imprisonment===
  • Done
  • "a U.S. federal judge approved a request from the French government to extradite Noriega from the United States to France after his release." - Perhaps this could be trimmed down a bit: "a U.S. federal judge approved the French government's request to extradite Noriega to France after his release from the Florida prison." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded
  • "In August 2007, a U.S. federal judge approved a request from the French government to extradite Noriega from the United States to France after his release. Noriega has also received a long jail term in absentia in Panama for murder and human rights abuses. Noriega appealed his extradition to France because he claimed that country would not honor his legal status as a prisoner of war.[" The middle sentence just feels really out of place here; I'd scrap it, particularly as it replicates information that also appears later in that paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done

Return, illness, and death

  • I'd rather not, to be honest, because it doesn't fit well with either imprisonment or with legacy, in my view.
  • Done
  • "On February 5, 2012, Noriega was moved from the El Renacer prison to the " - El Renacer was mentioned in the previous sentence so we might be able to go with simple "On February 5, 2012, Noriega was moved to the " Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • done
  • "he suffered a brain hemorrhage during surgery to remove a benign tumor which left him in critical condition" - we've already mentioned the tumour so no need to do so here. It would be better to go with something like "During surgery to remove the tumour, on March 7, 2017 he suffered a brain haemorrhage which left him in a critical condition in the intensive care unit of Panama City's Santo Tomas hospital." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done

Image and legacy

  • Done
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Reworded
  • Done
  • Added computer game: country of origin reads very odd to me in this context, so leaving it out for now.
  • Done
  • "In gameplay Noriega's character is referred to as "Old Pineapple Face", by fictional character Frank Woods. The name "Old Pineapple Face" was an actual nickname for Noriega used by Panamanians" - How about: "In the game, the fictional character Frank Woods refers to Noriega as "Old Pineapple Face", a nickname originally applied to the President by Panamanians." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, much better.
  • Done. Also replaced the source; though the information is non-controversial, I hadn't noticed it was the WSJ blog, not their edited content.

Images

  • Added one, will work on adding more
  • Added another, of Carter and Torrijos: if you'd prefer one of just Torrijos, I can swap that in.
  • Also added image of the Contras. I'll stop at this point because I don't want to go overboard on indirectly related images, but will add a particularly good one if I find it.

Citations

  • Some sources, such as 66 (Koster, R.M.; Sánchez, Guillermo (1990). In the Time of the Tyrants: Panama, 1968–1990), 107 (Noriega, Manuel; Eisner, Peter (1997). America's Prisoner: The Memoirs of Manuel Noriega), and 128 (^ Albert, Steven (1993). The case against the General: Manuel Noriega and the politics of American justice.) lack page numbers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Midnightblueowl: I will work on this, but it might be best to proceed with the review, as I've addressed the other points. @Rgr09: You added two of those citations: I do not have full access to them. Can you please provide the page numbers for those, and in particular for ref 66? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I have added page numbers for the Albert reference at 128. The reason these cover almost two hundred pages is because almost half the book deals with the subject of this footnote, the 18+ month period from Noriega's capture to the start of his trial. I gave page numbers for the two references I changed to cite Koster and Sanchez. None of the other 11 references to this book, including the current fn 66, were from me. I do have a copy of the book, however; since these references have not yet been verified, I will verify and put page numbers in. If there are problems, I will comment on the talk page. Rgr09 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Rgr09: Thank you, that is much appreciated. I do not own the book myself. Just FYI: when pinging someone, you need to sign the ping in the same edit, else it does not take. In this case it wasn't a problem, because I was watching this page. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Formatting

  • Well I thought about it but as currently structured there are temporally overlapping sections. We could look at this again as the article develops, perhaps, but I think for the GAN it's best to leave this as is.

Lede

  • "with longstanding ties to United States intelligence agencies. " - Not needed here in the first paragraph. It feels a little like it's deliberately pushing a particular angle or POV by providing said information at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, the original lead said he was a CIA informant: it was changed after some talk page discussion. His role with the US intelligence is so wel known that leaving it out seems inappropriate to me. What I have done is to move the "dictator" label to the legacy section, where it flows better, whereas the more "occupational" things are in the first paragraph.
  • Given how little the sources mention his ideology, I've placed it in the second paragraph, where it flows with the information about his presidency.
  • Done
  • Done
  • "He became an officer in the Panamanian army, and rose through the ranks in alliance with Omar Torrijos, becoming chief of military intelligence after Torrijos led a coup in 1968". This might work better as two sentences. "He became an officer in the Panama National Guard and rose through the ranks in alliance with Omar Torrijos. In 1968, Torrijos overthrew President Arnulfo Arias in a coup, establishing himself as leader; under Torrijos' government, Noriega became chief of military intelligence".
  • Done
  • "From the 1950s until shortly before the U.S. invasion, Noriega worked with the U.S. intelligence" - Chronologically, this material would work more smoothly in the previous paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That was how I'd originally written it: Rgr09 shuffled the content a week ago. I've moved it back, but as I'm not particular, if I'm reverted I'm inclined to let it remain.
  • The fourth paragraph just gives unnecessary levels of detail about things which are effectively far less important than his earlier life. For instance "Noriega's U.S. prison sentence ended in September 2007, but he remained in prison while fighting extradition to France, where he had been convicted in absentia of money laundering in 1999. France's extradition request was granted in April 2010, and after a retrial Noriega was again found guilty and sentenced to 7 years in prison." could very easily become "In 2010, Noriega was extradited to France, where he was imprisoned for money laundering". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded
  • "Panama, which had also convicted Noriega in absentia in 1995 for the murder of a political foe, then requested Noriega's extradition to serve out his sentence in Panama. French courts upheld the request and Noriega was extradicted to Panama in December 2011." Again, it would be best to shorten this. How about "In 2011, the French extradited him to Panama, where he was sentenced for murder." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • reworded
  • "Noriega was diagnosed with a brain tumor in March 2017 and died at Hospital Santo Tomas in Panama City on May 29, 2017, two months after surgery." Same issue here. Perhaps "Noriega died following complications during brain surgery"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done

Thanks Vanamonde. I'm happy that this article meets the GA criteria and will pass it shortly. Well done on all the hard work that you have put into this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Intelligence connections I

The article is much improved from its earlier condition, but it still gives a lopsided emphasis to Noriega's relations with the CIA. This is not right, DIA and NSA also played important roles in US policy toward Noriega. I have some specific suggestions on this part of the article.

  • the lead: Manuel Noriega was a Panamanian politician and military officer, and longtime CIA informant.
possible fix: "who at various times had close ties to American intelligence services." CIA should not be singled out, as DIA also had close connections with Noriega for a longer period than CIA. Informant also seems wrong. Noriega's relation with US intelligence changed dramatically as his position in Panama's government changed. Finally, placing this in the lead, as opposed to, say, Noriega's connection with Omar Torrijos, gives exaggerated importance to the intelligence connection in Noriega's career (IMO). Suggest that this be placed in a section specifically evaluating the reasons Noriega was able to rise to power.
  • 1st graf: From the 1950s until shortly before the U.S. invasion, Noriega worked closely with the U.S. CIA.
The claim that the CIA had contact with Noriega in the 1950s needs a reliable source. Kempe is the main reference for Noriega's early relations with US intelligence. He does not state his source(s), but I accept that he had one (some). Dinges was apparently not able to find similar sources, but I don't have complete access to his book. Kempe says Noriega's first contact with US intelligence was DIA in the 1950s. Unless Dinges has something contradicting Kempe's DIA/1950s claim, this sentence be revised. In addition, the word 'closely' needs to be justified. If someone says closely, please cite. If not, please explain basis. Rgr09 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Rgr09 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 1st graf cont: "Noriega was one of the CIA's most valued intelligence sources, as well as one of the primary conduits for illicit weapons, military equipment and cash destined for U.S.-backed counter-insurgency forces throughout Central and South America." What is the source for 'most valued'? What is the source for 'primary conduit'? What is the source for 'throughout Central and south America', as opposed to just 'Nicaraguan contras'?
  • Early life and family, 1st graf: "He is reported to have begun his association with the U.S. intelligence services at this time, providing information about the activities of his comrades" 'This time' seems to refer to Instituto Nacional, meaning that Noriega was a US informant in high school. This is odd. Kempe says he was recruited by army intelligence in Chorrillos, Dinges doesn't seem to mention even mention Instituto Nacional, and the Atlantic article is certainly referring to Chorrillos. The chronological problem here continues in the rest of this section. The first US payment from the Army was in 1955 when Noriega was 21; please verify whether he was in high school in Panama or Chorrillos in Peru at the time. Rgr09 (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Resolved issues about the Serrill source.
  • CIA involvement and U.S. support graf 2: "Noriega's trial in 1991–92 revealed that he had been paid at least $320,000 by the U.S." The article cites a Time story by Michael Serrill. This is miscited throughout the article. The Time on-line archive misdates many of the stories in it. The Serrill article was published February 22, 1988 and describes the testimony of Juan Blandon before the Kerry committee. It says nothing about US payments to Noriega.
Fix: I have gone ahead and replaced this with the NYT Johnston article, which seems to be the real source for US admissions of $320K payments to Noriega. I have clarified that this was what the government acknowledged paying Noriega. Rgr09 (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Rgr09, first off, I'd like to see some evidence that the article was not published on the date listed in the article. Second, if that were true, then the article cannot be used for events post 1991 (if used as such, this was probably a selection error on my part in the "cite named sources" tab); but why remove it for more general analysis, such as "precise figure is a matter of debate"? It isn't as if it's a bad source. Vanamonde (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The Time story referenced in the article was this one. As noted above, it was published February 22, 1988; this date comes from a check in EBSCO Academic Search Premier. The article itself shows the time frame: "Testifying before a Senate investigative subcommittee last week, [Juan] Blandon said ..." This refers to Blandon's testimony before the Kerry Committee on 1988/2/9-1988/2/10. The article continues, "Blandon's disclosures came just days after U.S. grand juries in Tampa and Miami indicted Noriega..." Noriega was indicted on Feb. 4, 1988. The article concludes, "While Noriega seems firmly entrenched for the moment..." so it predates the U.S. invasion of Panama. The article section with the phrase "precise figure is a matter of debate" is a discussion of casualties in the invasion. Since the article predates the invasion, it can't be used as a source for invasion casualties. Perhaps you intended to cite some other source? Rgr09 (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I'm not familiar with the material, but I can confirm that the dates of articles in the Time archives are messed-up. I'm not sure how extensive the errors are, however, here is a sample of articles also dated "June 24, 2001" that clearly are contemporaneous reports. This is a good find on the part of Rgr09 that "somebody" needs to address, particularly since many, many authors are citing these urls in their books! -Location (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. We do not require Serill in any case: I've fixed the citation needed tags for the time being. Just to keep this discussion manageable, I'm going to collapse the bit about Serrill. Revert me if you're unhappy with that. Vanamonde (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, getting to the other points raised above one by one. Yes, the CIA should probably not be highlighted in the lede. I have modified this to include US intelligence services instead. Given the prominence this fact is given in the sources (I'd say it's the second most prominent description of him in sources after "dictator of Panama") we have no option but to mention it in the lead. Vanamonde (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have modified the sentence, with respect to the second point here. Contact was with US intelligence: "closely" is accurate, based on the article body, but is not necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • With respect to point three: this is functioning as a summary of the article body. As such, no fact is here that isn't in the body, and so it does not require a separate citation. If you believe this is an inaccurate summary of the body, then let's work on that: but we don't need refs for the summary. Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to make of your fourth point. Dinges isn't referring to his high school, he is referring to his leftist student union comrades. I see no evidence that the Atlantic article is saying differently: how do you read it as "almost certainly referring to the Chorilos"? Furthermore, the first payment was in 1955. We don't know when he went to Peru, but it is unlikely he was in school in Peru for seven years. Even taking a step back for a moment, it seems far more likely that the US wanted an informant within leftists circles in a country in which it had a large military presence, than among military academy students in a country in which it didn't have a large presence. His age at this point is unclear, because nobody knows exactly when he was born. If he was born in 1934, as many sources say, then he would be 21, yes. But so what? Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
My point is that there seem to be contradictions between Dinges's and Kempe's accounts of when Noriega began his relation with US intelligence. Perhaps I am confused; I should read Dinges. Rgr09 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

More comments on sourcing

The documentary basis of the article is now much improved; kudos to Vanamonde for a great deal of hard work. However, problems remain with some sources, specifically Galván 2012, Cockburn & St-Clair 1998, and a single reference to Webb 1999. The problem with these sources are two; first, they do not meet the definition of reliable sources. Galván is self-published (McFarland), Webb is a conspiratorial spiderweb with major criticisms from most reviews, and Cockburn & St-Clair is a compilation of conspiratorial works, replete with errors, and even more criticisms from reviewers. Second, these sources are in many, perhaps most cases, being used for information that comes from other sources that are already used in the article. This confusion over who made what claims defeats the whole purpose of annotation and really should be fixed. For example, the sole cite from Webb (p. 227, a description of Spadafora's murder) is a summary of Koster and Sánchez (29), a much more useful work which is already in the article. This is an even bigger problem with Galván, who has compiled most of his book from other sources. For example, the story of Noriega raping a 13-year-old girl is sourced by Galván to Koster and Sánchez (21). Again, why cite Galván when he is simply using the works already cited in the article? I will go ahead and fix the more obvious cases of this unless there are specific objections. Rgr09 (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rgr09: Any help in improving the sourcing is, of course, welcome. I'm a little uncertain about the categorization of McFarland as a self-published source: their editorial role is not clear, but their books (including this one) are cited by academic sources. While we should provide the best sourcing available, we need to be aware of undue weight, too: and I'd add that the tone of Kempe, otherwise seen as an authoritative source on this subject, is frequently more sensationalist than that of Galvan. Removing the darkweb source is fine, not sure how I didn't see that (I certainly didn't add it). Happy to discuss this further. Vanamonde (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Kempe sometimes uses a sensational tone, but he is unavoidable because his original research. There are prominent claims in the article based solely on his work. In fact, I find most of the writing on Noriega sensational in tone, so there's not much that can be done to avoid this. McFarland is just not the place to publish your book if you are trying for academic credibility, don't know what else to say on that. Aside from this, my object to Galván's book is simply that it is a compilation based in large part on works already cited in the article. This makes tracing the actual source of statements in the article unnecessarily complicated. For now I'll work on fixing that; let me know if you see problems in my changes. Rgr09 (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Good job on this article! Very informative. @Rgr09: I think you already know my views on the Cockburns, St. Clair, and Webb. My own opinion is that they rarely should be cited, and then only to the extent that their claims have been discussed in reliable sources. As a general comment, I find it very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff with that group. I imagine that all of them have found information during their investigations that others have not, but I'm extremely skeptical about their analyses and conclusions. -Location (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Webb has already been removed, I think. It's tricky, with the others. After reading most of these sources, and parts of all of them, I'm inclined to think that Dinges is the best of the lot, followed by the Time of the Tyrants volume. I'd rank the other books fairly evenly with the media sources, probably with a slight edge to Cockburn and St. Clair. While their publisher is a leftist publisher, having a POV is not the same as being unreliable: and they do have an editorial team, and their publications are certainly receiving more scrutiny than many media sources. We just have to be careful about in-text attribution for contentious analysis. I'm not hung up on any of the sources; but I do think we cannot rely on Dinges for everything, as that would be undue weight. Now when I did my second rewrite I tried to reduce drastically the reliance upon Galvan, but if there's further work possible in that direction, it may not be a bad thing. Let's talk specifics: are there any particular citations/statements you are concerned with? We can begin with addressing those. Vanamonde (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is one statement:
Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair would later suggest that the United States had known of Noriega's drug trafficking since the 1960s, and had been shielding him from investigation from the 1960s to the 1990s
In my opinion, this is a claim that has crossed the line of WP:REDFLAG, so using in-text attribution is insufficient. The preface to Whiteout credits numerous advocates of the CIA drug trafficking conspiracy theories, so I think we need to keep that in context while evaluating its reliability as a source. -Location (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The statement in the article that Location cites is indeed a problem. It is perhaps derived from Cockburn and St. Clair (289), where they say "Actually the US had known about Noriega's drug trafficking since at least the late 1960s, and there was a history across nearly three decades of US military and intelligence agencies shielding Noriega from criminal investigation." This 'nearly three decades' thus starts in the "late 1960s": say 1969 (there's a reason for picking this). Plus nearly thirty = 1998, but Noriega was in U.S. custody from December 1989 on. 'Nearly three decades' is thus a grossly misleading claim on Cockburn & St. Clair's part. This sort of thing is typical of their book; I can supply more examples if you want. In fact, Noriega was indicted in the US on 12 counts of racketeering in February 1988 (Albert, Case against the General, p. 48-49). The grand jury that indicted him was convened in October 1987, as a result of interrogation of Floyd Carlton in summer 1987 (Albert, p. 29). Carlton was extradicted from Puerto Rico to the US in January 1987, as a result of DEA investigation of his organization (Albert, p. 11). The investigation of Carlton's organization began in 1984 and was directly aimed at Noriega (Albert, p. 5). So there were years of undercover and prosecutorial work that went into making the case brought against Noriega. Cockburn and St. Clair give NO source for their claim that "US military and intelligence agencies" shielded Noriega against this investigation or any other. This would have been a major news story, and as journalists Cockburn & St. Clair would have received major accolades if they had broken such a story in any reliable news outlet. But that would have required a source, which clearly they did not have. Putting this sort of stuff in the article is a major problem. Rgr09 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rgr09: I'm wondering if you wrote "there's a reason for picking" 1969 for simple math or because of some other reason. The claim in Whiteout sort of echoes Kerry Committee report which stated that by the time Noriega was indicted on drug trafficking charges in 1988, the US government had done little to respond to information regarding criminality on the part of Panamanian officials "for nearly twenty years" (i.e. 1988 - "nearly twenty years" = 1969). I view Kerry's inquiries as part of a partisan battle against the Reagan administration's support for the Contras - and I assume Cockburn and St. Clair have similar political leanings - so do you think Kerry was highlighting the issues with Noriega as coinciding with the "takeover" of a Republican administration... vs. his rise after the '68 coup? -Location (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding: "Officials in the Reagan administration stated that they had overlooked Noriega's drug-related activities because he was an ally of the U.S. in the conflicts in Central America." This is cited to Seymour Hersh who wrote: "Officials in the Reagan Administration and past Administrations said in interviews that they had overlooked General Noriega's illegal activities because of his cooperation with American intelligence and his willingness to permit the American military extensive leeway to operate in Panama." Here, the text in the Wikipedia article appears to put emphasis on the Reagan administration and on Noriega's drug trafficking. It also conflicts with a later statement: "The relationship between the U.S. and Noriega deteriorated further during the late 1980s, particularly after the U.S. began to suspect that Noriega was lending his support to other intelligence services, as well as to drug-trafficking groups." On one hand, we are stating that the United States knew about Noriega's drug trafficking and turned a "blind eye"; on the other, we are suggesting that the US found out later. Should there be some clarification on these points? -Location (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the statement from Cockburn and St. Clair flagged above. The rest of the stuff is actually not contradiction in our article so much as contradiction in US foreign policy, which Dinges makes clear. He was being shielded/used by some agencies (intelligence, mostly) even while being investigated by other (Justice and DEA). Dinges explores these contradictions in great detail: I tried to condense material primarily because we don't want this to be a treatise on US foreign policy. If specific details are needed, though, we could look into this more. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that an acknowledgment in the article of the conflicts within the US government over how to deal with Noriega is needed. Currently the impression the article gives is one of unmitigated hypocrisy. The DEA's investigation into Noriega's role in drug smuggling starting in 1984 and the DOJ's successful prosecution of Noriega in 1990 contradict this. I don't mean that the article should be vastly expanded, just that the conflicts be made clearer. Rgr09 (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: If we keep the bit regarding "overlooked", can we clarify that the assertion was made by officials of "past Administrations" and that it applied to other illegal activities, too? If GHWB is to be believed, Noriega was dealt with by seven administrations and it was the Reagan administration that cracked down.[2] Rgr09 has touched on this below, so it probably needs other sourcing for it to be stated as fact. -Location (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Herbert S. Parmet, a history professor a CUNY and an author of multiple biographies of US Presidents, wrote that Ford, Carter, and Reagan "valued the Noriega asset enough to keep federal prosecutors from bringing drug-trafficking and arms-smuggling charges against him"; however, I'm looking at GBooks snippet and cannot see the citation.(p. 279) There is a tantalizing passage at the top of p. 286 that states, "Blunt reminders that the U.S. knew about Noriega's drug-trafficking were tuned out...", but I cannot see the full context of the passage. -Location (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Just a note to say I'm not ignoring this, it's just that RL has intervened for a few days, and I need a solid chunk of time to dig through the sources. Rgr09 is correct about other intelligence agencies needing to be mentioned. As for the "hypocrisy"; we can work on the phrasing of any conflict, but really the sources describe the US government as, at best, yanking in different directions, and at worst of blatant hypocrisy. Our job is to portray the sources fairly and honestly without getting into too much detail: sugar coating anything is not part of it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

with respect to "McFarland is just not the place to publish your book if you are trying for academic credibility". I'm not hung up on keeping every instance of the source, and am willing to minimize it. But to throw out a publication treated as scholarly by other sources, you need to provide a little more than that bald statement. What evidence do you have that that does not meet the standards for reliable sources? Vanamonde (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that I put it too strongly. The fact that McFarland published a book certainly does not bar it from being scholarly, but it is not a scholarly press per se. Are there any reviews of Galvan 2012 that would support it as being a notable, accurate, or scholarly work? You mention that it is cited in other works. Could you give some examples? My main concern with Galvan is that generally fails to provide its sources (the references at the end are very incomplete). It looks like most of its content is in fact from the same books cited elsewhere in the article. Rgr09 (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
A google scholar search documents 12 citations. From previous experience, this is likely to be a slight underestimate. Citations include those by Seki, a bonafide scholar, in a dissertation and a conference paper, and this paper, in addition to some others in more uncertain publications. I'm a little uncomfortable second-guessing the sources to suggest that Reagan had a role to play in Noriega's indictment. We should mention the Reagan-administration connection where the sources do so, not when it seems like it should be mentioned. The Parmet source says that Bush was putting up with Noriega's gunrunning, drug smuggling, and money-laundering; but we already knew that, so I'm not sure if we need to add this. Likewise what Parmet says on page 286. Location, what in this source that you felt was crucial? At the moment, at least, I can access the pages you named. I've made a slight tweak to the statement about US governments. As for the supposed disagreements above, there's a lot of complexity here. Noriega was smuggling drugs himself (or rather, paying people to do it); this, the US was aware of. He also supported drug cartels, such as in Colombia, which I believe the US was less aware of. The difference is in the phrasing "drug-smuggling" versus "support for smugglers"; not at all the same thing. Again, Noriega's exploits, and those of his associates, and the investigation of these, are described in far too much detail for us to cover every aspect here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The point of bringing up Parmet was not that "Bush was putting up with Noriega's gunrunning, drug smuggling, and money-laundering" but that Parmet said multiple administrations did the same thing. It's not crucial to use Parmet as a source but I think it is important that the article does not single out the Reagan administration for turning a blind eye to Noriega's illegal activities.
I have no strong opinion regarding Galván, however, I do think we need to keep an eye out for claims that raise WP:REDFLAGS and might not be corroborated by official investigations. I am not a scholar, however, my experience looking into various CIA conspiracy theories (e.g. JFK, October Surprise, and especially drug trafficking) is that there is a long history of various journalists and authors (including many with what otherwise would be considered very good academic credentials) publishing books or making claims that cherry pick information or simply ignore the official findings of investigations into these things. The dissemination of those claims by others with or without a similar political bent is so pervasive (e.g. it's not difficult to find other academics that cite Whiteout, Cocaine Politics, or The Politics of Heroin as gospel) that material that seems to imply deliberate wrong-doing on the part of a particular person or administration should be verified a little bit more rigorously. -Location (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

I would like to go back to the apparent contradiction mentioned earlier. These three sentences are in the article, the first being in the lede:

  1. Noriega was also seen by the U.S. as a collaborator in the war on drugs, despite Noriega himself having amassed a personal fortune through drug trafficking operations. Though his U.S. intelligence handlers were aware of this, it was allowed because of his usefulness to the U.S.
  2. Officials in the Reagan administration stated that Noriega's drug-related activities had been overlooked because he was an ally of the U.S. in the conflicts in Central America.
  3. The relationship between the U.S. and Noriega deteriorated further during the late 1980s, particularly after the U.S. began to suspect that Noriega was lending his support to other intelligence services, as well as to drug-trafficking groups.

This article in the September 9, 1988 issue of The New York Times says (among other things):

  1. Mr. Bush, as C.I.A. Director, was one of a number of officials in Democratic and Republican Administrations who had access to intelligence reports on Mr. Noriega that would have described the Panamanian's suspected activities, including drug trafficking. In those years, the United States maintained a relationship with him because officials believed, on balance, that the cooperation they were receiving from Mr. Noriega was more valuable than the damage he was causing.
  2. Mr. Bush first met with Mr. Noriega sometime in 1976. It is unclear whether aides told him at the time about the allegations of drug dealing that had been learned from informants in Panama and by the N.S.A.'s electronic surveilliance.
  3. Mr. Bush said in the televised debate that he saw no hard evidence until Mr. Noriega was indicted earlier this year by two Federal grand juries in Florida on charges related to drug trafficking.
  4. And Mr. Bush said it was the Reagan Administration that moved against the Panamanian as soon as it had hard evidence of his involvement in drug trafficking.

What I infer from this report (if Bush is to be believed) is that the United States did not overlook Noriega's drug trafficking, but rather they didn't do anything because they couldn't prove he was involved in drug trafficking. (The line stating that "the United States maintained a relationship" was in spite of spy vs. spy, not drug trafficking.) Is it a fact that the U.S. "overlooked" or "turned a blind eye" to drug trafficking, or do we need to use attribution? -Location (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This article in the May 29, 1988 issue of the The New York Times predates the above and has competing claims of who knew what and when (going back to 1968), including a similar denial from Elliott Abrams. -Location (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Honestly I'm not seeing the contradiction here. We say the US overlooked Noriega's smuggling because of his usefulness elsewhere: the NYT article says the US saw him as a net positive. What's the distinction? Bush says they had insufficient evidence: but we shouldn't really be giving any weight to Bush's own statements (he's involved, he's not a reliable source, etc) just we would more or less ignore what Noriega himself says. If we have reliable secondary sources saying the US had insufficient evidence, then that's a different matter. Vanamonde (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
There are a couple of distinctions to be made. The NYT article doesn't say "the US overlooked Noriega's smuggling because of his usefulness elsewhere" or that there was evidence of drug smuggling that Bush deemed to be insufficient. It states that there were "allegations of drug dealing that had been learned from informants" [emphasis mine] and that "Bush said it was the Reagan Administration that moved against the Panamanian as soon as it had 'hard evidence' of his involvement in drug trafficking." When serious claims like these involve CIA directors and Presidents of the United States, then their responses in reliable sources to those charges should be mentioned. Either way, the sentence in our article implies that what Bush said is true: "The relationship between the U.S. and Noriega deteriorated further during the late 1980s, particularly after the U.S. began to suspect that Noriega was lending his support to other intelligence services, as well as to drug-trafficking groups." That distinctly implies that the U.S. did not know Noriega was involved in drug trafficking, then for some reason did learn (i.e. "suspect") that he was involved in drug trafficking. -Location (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll go into the sources again later, but a brief comment: we need to be careful to remember the distinction between Noriega's own smuggling activities, through Carlton and others, and his support for the Colombian drug cartels. The two are distinct phenomena, which the US is going to have seen differently. "smuggling" =/= "support for smuggling groups". Vanamonde (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Manuel Noriega. 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) 09:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Trial issues

This is another section that needs work. So far, I have corrected some dates and added references for these corrections. Let me know if there is a question about these. In addition, I have corrected one quote from the appeal decision, for which see the Findlaw citation. Rgr09 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that we've given the trial too much detail, but otherwise the changes look good, thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The trial section makes several inaccurate claims. I can't get them all in today, but here are two:

  • "At his trial, Noriega intended to defend himself by presenting his alleged crimes within the framework of his work for the CIA." There is no source for this, and after reading Albert's book, I do not believe it is an accurate summary of the defense strategy. The defense lawyers, Frank Rubino and Jon May, pursued several strategies, including jurisdictional claims, due process claims, a rebuttal of the drug case, and "putting the indictment in context" (Albert, p.207) This last did not involve just his work for the CIA, which is again inaccurately singled out. An non-CIA example that Rubino gave was presenting "General Noriega's relationship with Fidel Castro in toto" to show that Noriega's meetings with Castro were not about drug distribution, but involved Noriega acting as the U.S.'s "main liaison between Washington and Havana." I will substitute a more accurate description of the defense approach in a day or two; this note is to give a heads up to other editors that this is a major issue.
Noriega's trial strategy was a form of the public authority defense. This requires a special pleading, called a 12.3 Notice, which the defense team filed in September 1990 (Albert, p. 215). To accurately characterize the defense strategy would take at least one whole paragraph; since there is a concern that the trial might get too much detail, I've simply deleted the one-sentence description used in the article. If there is a need for a description, I can add one, but it will necessarily be longer than one sentence. Rgr09 (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The government objected to any disclosure of the purposes for which the United States had paid Noriega because this information was classified and its disclosure went against the interests of the United States." This is simply not true. The government could not make this objection because the use of classified information at trial was/is governed by the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). Here is what Albert (222) says about this: "In adopting CIPA, Congress made it clear that a defendant was entitled to use classified information in his defense. The right to a fair trial and due process was paramount. A judge was not to balance the national security interests of the government against the right of the defendant to obtain information and put on a defense. Where information was central to the question of guilt or innocence and a defendant's consitutional guarantees were at stake, Congress had said that there should be no alternative but public disclosure." The appeals court decision cited in the article found no flaw in Judge Hoeveler's application of the CIPA. Because this is claim is so clearly wrong, I have simply deleted it. Rgr09 (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Revisions to drug and arms section

This section, being based mostly on pre-trial reporting, needs some revision. Suspicions of N's involvement in drug smuggling go back to the early 1970s, but the claim that there were reports going back to the mid-60s is not supported by anything I've found. Reasons why the U.S. did not act earlier will always be speculative, but a stronger chronology of what actions were alleged at what times is necessary to support such discussions. I don't see how this can be avoided, even if some expansion of the section results. Here are some points added or changed. Rgr09 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The Frantz et al LAT article provides early background.
  • The 'opium' plant reference in Hersh is a misunderstanding based on the Darien cocaine lab. I have deleted this. This is the cocaine lab mentioned below which Dinges 1990 took to be an instance of Noriega taking action against drugs. Later, however, one of the counts in the Miami indictment of Noriega accused N of taking bribes to let the cartel build the lab, then giving part of their money back when it was accidentally raided. The jury found N guilty on this count. I will revise this section soon. Rgr09 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm open to some expansion, but the section is already quite lengthy. If you wish to add much more material, we'd be entering territory where a spinoff article would be appropriate, especially if you wish to add details about when the US knew what. The article isn't primarily about that, after all. It's a biography. Vanamonde (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Check on Koster and Sanchez citations

This is an attempt to find page numbers for citations to Koster and Sanchez (hereafter K&S). These were originally all given without page numbers as fn 66.

  • fn 66 elections: K&S do not give 50,000 figure for margin of victory in honest election, but do give 1713 figure for reported margin of victory. Refs adjusted acordingly.
  • fn 66 on Luis Cordoba "directing torture of Spadafora": the phrase appears on p. 193, but the details of the claim are given on p. 28, where K&S cite an article by Sanchez in Harper's magazine. I have merged this reference with the 'rabid dog' reference below.
  • fn 66 'rabid dog' quote: K&S attribute this quote to an NSA wiretap of a conversation between Noriega and Cordoba. This conversation is the basis for their claim that Cordoba 'directed' the torture and murder of Spadafora. K&S do not give a source for this claim, but apparently there is more about this in the Kempe and Dinges books. The Hersh quote originally below this ("U.S. intelligence officials believed that they had evidence of Noriega's involvement in the killing") refers to this NSA wiretapping, but Hersh gives none of the details K&S do. For now I have dropped Hersh and kept K&S because they have more details, but all of this needs a better basis.
  • other changes in Spadafora section: I have added material from K&S on the witnesses to PDF detention of Spadafora; previously the act was vaguely attributed to a 'death squad.'
  • fn 66, consequences of Barletta resignation: 'As a friend and former student of George Shultz, Barletta had been considered "sacrosanct" by the United States': The word 'sacrosanct' does not appear in either Galvan or K&S. I have replaced it with a more NPOV description. K&S express contradictory views on the effect of Barletta's dismissal on U.S.--Panama relations. P. 37 is closer to what the text says, but p. 341 gives a different view. Both are too long to quote here and both are couched in very sarcastic and polemical terms. Because of this ambiguity, I have simply dropped any K&S reference here, and instead replaced it with an article from the NYT. For Barletta's relation with Shultz, I have added a cite from Kempe. Galvan 188 also discusses some of the U.S. response to Barletta's removal, and I have added this here.
  • fn 66, coalitions in 1989 election: K&S do not give several of the details cited in the article, so I have replaced K&S here with Scranton 1991. The article also misidentified Carlos Duque, I have corrected this. Rgr09 (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In general, K&S is a very passionate, polemical book, and this makes it hard to use it for the NPOV description that Wikipedia requires. As an example, when Nicolas Barletta resigned as President and was replaced by Eric Delvalle, K&S write: "[Delvalle] put on the trappings of office just stripped from Barletta as avidly as ever a dog lapped vomit, nor was any dog ever more reverent toward its master." (p. 37) Colorful, maybe deserved, but not NPOV. Rgr09 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The changes look to be an improvement. I have trimmed the addition slightly, as the description of Barletta seemed too detailed to me. The Polemic tone is unfortunately commonplace in writing about this topic, and in English writing about LA in general; we have to work with what we have. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Relationship with Soka Gakkai section

I've deleted the Relationship with Soka Gakkai section which had been reinstated on October 30, 2017 by an anonymous user with the rationale that the text is "well-sourced." In addition, however, to comments by User:Vanamonde93 in Talk Archive 1 in this article, the same sources were flagged in this revision and the discussion at Talk:Daisaku Ikeda#Relationship with Noriega documents the unreliability of the sources. Since the sources are unreliable, the allegations are dubious, and any implied connection with the umbrella Rise to power section is merely speculative, the text should not be reinstated (see WP:HARM#TEST). Tacktician (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I was never a fan of this content (it's undue weight, apart from all the other problems), but was unable to check the sources due to access and language issues, and didn't have the time or energy to argue. Vanamonde (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Noriega joins Seventh-day Adventist Church

I found an independent source talking about Manuel Noriega becoming a Seventh-day Adventist. https://gachiepm.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/read-about-noriegas-conversion-and-baptism-into-the-seventh-day-adventist-church/Catfurball (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A blog on wordpress is not a reliable source. Vanamonde (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manuel_Noriega/Archive_2&oldid=1038508984"