|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Panama article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of Panama, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
|Panama has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 10 dates. [show]|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
Products Exported by Panama
I removed the picture "A proportional representation of Panama's exports" from the Currency section because it is no longer representative of the present situation, e.g. Packaged Medicine is now just 7% instead of 28%. The latest version can be found at https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/pan/ . If anyone wants to reinstate the picture I suggest using the latest version instead. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The caption to a photo saying "Though Panama suffered heavy economic upheavals under the brutal PDF regime, it has managed to rebuild its economy as one of the fastest growing in the world" is biased and inaccurate. The illegal American invasion caused far more damage and economic upheaval than the PDF regime had.18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Panama!
- @Horst-schlaemma: Do all countries have their own tourism pages? Danotto94 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Politics of Panama
In the section "Ethnic groups" you have the following label: 70% Mestizo 14% Zambo 10% White 6% Amerindian
People of African decedent do not like the label "Zambo" it is a negative slur and if you could please change it to be more respectful. Thanks in advance. Ingridjordan (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The 1989 invasion section is not enough neutral -- Edited
This article is not enough neutral in the 1989 invasion section, where it makes no mention of the bombing of Panama city and it doesn't cite enough sources
Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II, Common Courage Press, 2008
Peck, James. Ideal Illusions: How the U.S. Government Co-opted Human Rights. Metropolitan Books, 2011.
The Panama Deception. Dir. Barbara Trent. Empowerment Project, 1992 documentary
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, 2003
EDIT: I edited the 1989 invsion section, which seems to refer very closely to the following document. Some images are shared, too. The document is indicated as a source
if this is the case, then some lines about the military intervention were cited with modifications .
This part: "The bombardments during the invasion caused the displacement of 20,000 persons"
was changed in:
"the intervention caused the displacement of 5000 persons"
with the 20,000 displaced persons reduced to 5000 and the original "bombardments" replaced by "intervention".
you can check it in the following link, a shot of the page that I made before my final edit of the article:
"The economic damage caused by the invasion and subsequent civil disobedience has been estimated to be between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars"
in the article was instead:
"The economic damage caused by the intervention has been estimated to be between 1.5 and 3 million dollars"
with the 2 Billions reduced to 3 Millions
also the source cited (http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Panama%20Imperialism%20and%20Struggle.htm) says:
"The economic damage caused by the invasion and subsequent civil disobedience had been estimated to be between $1.5 and $2 billion balboas, which would be comparable to US dollars"
"Although described as a surgical maneuver, the action led to civilian deaths whose estimated numbers range from 400 to 4,000 during the two weeks of armed activities in the largest United States military operation to that date since the end of the Vietnam War."
was not included
An original statement of the article affirming: "Most Panamanians supported the intervention" has been edited and now is "Many Panamanians supported the intervention" since in one of the two sources cited ( http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Panama.htm#TopOfPage ) there is no mention of an undisputed support of "most" of the Panamanians--.
In the document cited as reference is stated that:
"The occupying forces had produced abundant material for the press on military aspects of the operation and on the generally sympathetic response of the Panamanian population, but there was still no count of civilian casualties or any serious exploration of the circumstances in which civilians died."