Talk:United States invasion of Panama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Central America / Panama (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Panama (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Colonialism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colonialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Cites pls[edit]

At what point should we add "All US units were in Panama, except..." and begin listing US Armed Services units that -weren't- in Panama, in order to save space? I jest, of course, but there is a big problem of verifiability here; basically we are trusting in self-regulation by contributors. That goes a long way, but is it good enough? This article is a big wall and at any time someone can come and put 'Kilroy was here' on it, only we may not be able to tell. All of this happened nearly 20 years ago, aren't there some declassified documents on troops and ops by now? Anarchangel (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • What units are you talking about specifically? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I was asking for citations. Any would be appreciated. Anarchangel (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cites pls is unfortunately an incomplete list and has inaccuracies. For example this source is a far more accurate history of the 7th ID Light Unit participation. Many of whom who were left out of The Center of Military History list. I agree with Niteshift36--be specific about what unit participation you doubt and i will try to find references/citations to help support validity. I will go as far to mail you my Military Records with personal information blacked out to show you proof of my units activities none which were included in The List from The Center of Military History but are included in the global security link I posted above. Remember, Military Clerks compile these lists and they make mistakes--often I am afraid. Don't believe the hype about "secret classified ops" and later declassification. Although there are some cases of this, unit participation inaccuracies are mostly just a result of poor record keeping and shoddy references. Thanks men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki at its Finest[edit]

This article starts: "The United States Invasion of Panama, code-named Operation Just Cause, was the invasion of Panama by the United States..." Removing the one piece of actual information "code-named Operation Just Cause," this reads the "The United States Invasion of Panama was the invasion of Panama by the United States..." Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC) -

it has been changed back and is now a fluent sentence. good pick up.Millertime246 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


The entire article seems a bit too biased towards the US. It should be appropriately changed so that it represents both points of view well — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is heavily biased. I'm not sure if the above was meant to be sarcastic but it actually feels to me as heavily anti-US. I must point out that you have said both points of view should be represented. Although well intentioned, this is simply incorrect as there should be no points of view (POV) on wikpedia, as per the editing rules.Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a factual record of events and not an exposition of the strength of each cause. This is how we avoid bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
It is obviously filled with a pervasive far-left bias, which is why it cites fringe propagandists like William Blum and uses wildly inflated stats from Ramsey Clark. However, that's pretty normal on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Reality has a well known liberal bias.

-g — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Error in US Units Involved[edit]

Original Text:

2nd Bde, 7th Inf Div (L), was alerted for deployment. DRF 1 (3/27th Inf) and DRF 2 (2/27th INF) were deployed.

Correct Text: (I was a member of the 5/21st.)

The DRF 1 battalion was (5/21st Inf)- not 3/27.

Suggested changes[edit]

Originally posted at Help talk:Page history -- John of Reading (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this article: I believe I have a unique perspective regarding the invasion: I was in the 1st/504th of the 82nd when we jumped in, and in the following year was assigned to the 1st/508th in Panama for two years. There are some changes I'd like to make to the article.

Correct some unit mentions and links

Change some of the text in the Invasion portion to more accurately reflect that a number of simultaneous missions took place at H-hour,

7th SFG blocking the Panama Bridge
B co 1/508th attacking Ft Amador
1st/508th(-) attacking the Commandancia
1st Ranger BN(+) conducting a combat parachute assault to seize Tocumen IAP
2nd/3rd(-) Ranger BNs conducting a combat parachute assault to seize Rio Hato army airfield
SEALs attacking Punta Patilla

These operations took place almost at the same time shortly after the start of Operation Acid Gambit by Delta. The reason that only one BN(+) of Rangers was tasked to seize the larger Tocumen IAP is that the 1st BDE of the 82nd was scheduled to conduct their combat parachute assault of Tocumen IAP some 45 min after the Rangers jumped (it didn't happen this way because we had freezing rain at Bragg as we were prepping to embark).

Let me know if I can make some changes to this article Macdaddy1964 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

US civilian deaths[edit]

There were three US civilian deaths, I knew all 3 of them (as probably a lot of zonians did):

  • Ricky Paul, a college student from the zone who was in Panama for the chirstmas break, was at a party in Cardenas (I was a the same party) when the Operation started. A civilian car blockade was enacted at the exit to Cardenas (there was only one way out), but we both persuaded them to let us through to return home. I was going to corozal, very close by. He was going to La Boca, a bit further. Supposedly at the entrance to La Boca wa another barricade, with some troops guarding this more vulnerable area. He reportedly did not slow down as he approached (a friend in the car said neither saw the barriers) and uncertain of his intent they opened fire on his vehicle, killing Ricky Paul and wounding the other passenger (Mark Mirrop).
  • Gertrude Kandi Helin, a schoolteacher, was in a vehicle with her husband as they tried to return home and passed through the intersection in front of Albrook air force base, where a firefight between PDF from Diablo and the USAF personnel at the front gate of Albrook. She was struck in the crossfire, her husband attempted to take her to a hospital but it was too late.
  • Raymond Dragseth, a computer science teacher (and uncle of Ricky Paul), was taken from his home in Panama City by some of Noriega's goons and was found dead in a shallow grave a few days later. He was president of a computer club I belonged to.

Not sure if this info belongs in the article but thought i would list it here. I thought it had been on an earlier version not certain. Aapold (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This lady [Gertrude Kandi Helin] was brought to a an aid station in Corozal. I was at this aid station and was part of the group that tryed so desperately to save her, but was unable. I still think of Mrs. Helin often, even after 26 years as sad today as then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:b82e:9490:5164:362c:fd24:b24f (talkcontribs) 20:17, 11 November 2015

Edits too the IOP page[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The source is a reliable article publish during the period of the articles events. The previous version was very unspecific, and did not mention how many of the deaths were the result of friendly fire incidents, nor did it mention several other facts.Citadel48 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • You're not listening to what I'm saying. Nobody is disputing the validity of the source, so telling me how reliable the source is just wastes time. The infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of information, not an exhaustive explanation. If there is a need to explain the difference between combat troops and support troops, then do it in the body of the article. Also, shoving in a number of a specific aircraft is not reasonable. There were many kinds of aircraft in use during Just Cause. Picking out just one and putting it in the infobox makes no sense at all. Lastly, if something is sourced elsewhere in the article, the source doesn't have to be in the infobox. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This is exhaustive, simply adding the number of planes and adding minor details is not.Citadel48 (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't help. Let's move slower, one issue at a time. There were many aircraft involved. Why are we listing the F117 in the infobox and not, for example, the AC-130's? Or the AH-1's? Can you explain why the F117 gets special mention in your preferred version? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I only found an article that detailed the number of F-117s, did not specify any other numbers.Citadel48 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • That's what I'm getting at. Just because we found a source that talked about a number doesn't mean it needs to be in the infobox. The article already does a better job, talking about the combat deployment for the AH-64, the HMMWV, and the F-117A. Shoving in a random stat about the F117 just because you came across a source isn't helping. It just clutters up the box and provides info that's inferior to the existing article. Improving the article is great, but improve it in a smart way. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Then may we include the specific numbers of troops numbers, etc?Citadel48 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The distinction isn't commonly done in an infobox. Aside from that, we're relying pretty heavily on the opinions of a single source to make a distinction that's opinion. Any soldier that has completed basic training should be considered combat trained. Take the US Army for example, the first 8-9 weeks of training that every soldier completes is BCT, Basic Combat Training. Even if they go on to be a cook, mechanic or supply clerk, they're "combat trained" and most still qualify once a year with their assigned weapon. So some writer can call a company of mechanics not combat ready, but it's not actually correct. Add to all this that the single source is behind a paywall, making it difficult to verify context. In the end, if this isn't an issue that needs to go in the infobox. If it mertis talking about, it merits more than the infobox. Why not work it into the article in a more complete fashion? Preferably based on more than just one articles opinion. I'm quite curious about the claim of 4.500 US troops during the initial invasion. We had far more than 4.500 troops there. The Army alone had more than that before the 20th. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The article states that 4,500 soldiers initially landed, followed by the other +22,000 soldiers. It makes a very large difference, because for all we know they were just conscripts, lacking military training, just like the Argentine soldiers in the Falklands war.Citadel48 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • What does "initially landed" mean? And there was already over that number there for months prior to the invasion. The 193rd Infantry Brigade was headquartered in Ft. Clayton and Ft. Kobbe. A brigade is over 4,000 soldiers. There were at least 4 military police companies of about 150 soldiers each. That's already more than your number and we haven't talked about the rest of the Army or the other branches. There were 13,000 troops stationed in Panama before the invasion and another 14,000 were brought in for the invasion. And what exactly does your source say about the Panamanian troops? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"nine of the 23 U.S. soldiers killed were accidentally slain by comrades.", "Dropping 4,500 paratroopers on top of the enemy in the dead of night" (please show me a source saying the original contingents also fought), "Thurman's plan called for 4,000 special operations troops--Green Berets, Rangers, SEALs, Delta Force and Air Force commandos--to perform raids all over Panama in the early hours of the invasion."

  • Show you a source that shows the original contingent fought? You're kidding right? Look at the order of battle and units involved. The 193rd Infantry Brigade that I mentioned was the biggest part of TF Bayonet, one of the principal prongs of the plan. Other units, such as the 470th Military Intelligence Brigade, 549th MP Co and 92nd MP BN were placed under the operational control of the 18th ABN Corps. 1st Battalion, 228th Aviation Regiment supported the 7th ID aviation element. and so on and so on. You're reading a single paragraph and don't know the context. To interpret it the way you do, we'd have thousands of troops deploying to the operation while an entire infantry brigade, the one most familiar with the country, sat on their collective butts. Fortunately, the Army isn't that stupid and the 193rd was the lead element in TF Bayonet. So the source doesn't even say what you're claiming, you've just misunderstood it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a good source, provide me an outside source. Citadel48 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Do you not understand how the article actually works? I'm not using the article as a source, the article is already sourced by reliable third party sources. Here is one of the sources in the article [1]. It's from the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, men who know a load more about the topic than some random reporter.

Or any of these: JTF-SO (XVIII Airborne Corps) OPLAN 90-2, dtd 3 Nov 1989, para 3.c(6) Tasks to TF Bayonet; Annex C, Operations

  • Army Lineage Series, Maneuver And Firepower, The Evolution Of Divisions And Separate Brigades, pg 402
  • JTF-SO (XVIII Airborne Corps) OPLAN 90-2, dtd 3 Nov 1989, Annex A, Task Organization
  • 193d Infantry Brigade OPLAN 9–89 (BLUE SPOON), Annex A, Task Organization
  • Summary – Operation JUST CAUSE – 193d Infantry Brigade (Light) (TF Bayonet), pp 9–10
  • Summary – Operation JUST CAUSE – 193d Infantry Brigade (Light) (TF Bayonet), pg. 10
  • JTF-PM OPLAN 7–88 (BLUE SPOON), para 3 Execution; Annex A, Task Organization
  • JTF-SO OPLAN 90-1, dtd 14 Sep 1989, Annex A, Task Organization
  • Or this: [2]
  • Or the Army Center for Military History page showing their campaign participation credit [3]
  • Proving the 193rd not only participated, but was the lead element of one of the task forces was easy. If should have been easy for you too. Try actually researching, not just reading a single article and making incorrect inferences. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I am stating that the 4,500 paratroopers were the first too engage, and one of you're own sources ([4]) also backs up my claim that only a few thousand of the Panamanian police, militia, & army could be classified as "combat troops" (Chap. 4 Pg., 37).

"The Panamanian Defense Force numbered nearly 12,800 troops, national guard, police, and officials; but only about 4,000 could be classified as combat troops." Citadel48 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • We're not even talking about the Panamanian number yet, so I'm not going to address that. First, you claimed that the locally based units weren't even involved. We've proven that's wrong. Now you're claiming that the edit you made is to indicate that they 4.500 were the first to engage. The changes you made to the US number do not reflect what is said in the sources. Things were going on simultaneously. The forces from the 75th Ranger Regiment, 82nd etc were starting to drop, but many of the locally based units were already in place. Yes, the sources say that if you bother to read them. The 1/7 Special Forces was stationed in Panama. They began moving into position on December 19, before the 82nd was even on the planes. 2 brigades of the 7th ID were already in Panama by Dec 19 and also started to pre-position. The 3rd Bde, 7ID moved into position before H- hour. Then, at essentially the same time, while the 75th was at the airport, the SEALs at Paitilla, and the rest of the 7th SF group was securing the bridge to keep PDF reinforcements away, the 193rd was securing Amador and the Commandancia. That operation started before the 82nd started dropping into the airport. Bottom line: You were wrong about no local units being involved. You're wrong on the US troop numbers and wrong on the timeline. Stop beating the dead horse.

Now, if you're done with the US numbers, and only if you're done with the US numbers, we can discuss the Panamanian numbers. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This source might be easier for you to understand: [5]. Among the highlights:
  1. "Major U.S. elements stationed in Panama at that time included the 193d Infantry Brigade, a battalion from the 7th Infantry Division (Light), a battalion from the 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized), two companies of U.S. Marines, and an assortment of military police, Army, Air Force, and Naval personnel." Note it says "stationed in Panama at the time".
  2. "Shortly after midnight on Wednesday morning, an unknown number of PDF personnel infiltrated Albrook Air Force Base and fired on a hangar where Army Special Forces personnel were assembling to board helicopters bound for the Pacora River Bridge." Note they were already in hangars at Albrook.
  3. "Together, these forces had twenty-seven different targets to engage or seize during the first hours of the assault, with about half scheduled to be taken simultaneously and the rest only hours later." Remember that I told you many things happened at the same time.....half of the targets were hit at about the same time.
  4. "The inclement weather at Fort Bragg delayed the arrival of the airborne brigade task force. Originally scheduled to parachute onto the airfields at 0145, the first wave of paratroopers did not "hit the silk" until 0200 - and then, it was only the first wave." Note: The majority of those 4,500 you're so obsessed with didn't even start dropping in until 0200 and it went on until 0500.
  5. "the assault on the PDF headquarters began at 0045 - fifteen minutes earlier than the original H-hour." Note that H hour was 0100. Fighting at the Commandancia began at 0045.
  6. "Alerted by the battle being fought downtown, several PDF soldiers loaded a bus and a passenger car at Fort Amador shortly after midnight and headed toward the main gate. At the same time, two PDF guards at the gate tried to arrest their two American counterparts. The Military Police (MPs) subdued their attackers as a platoon of paratroopers, inserted onto the installation on the nineteenth to protect U.S. property, arrived. The PDF bus and car barreled down the exit road just as the MPs and paratroopers were building a roadblock. Shots were exchanged. In what General Stiner later summarized as "a first-class job by a very disciplined and professional force," the 1-508th Infantry (Airborne) of USARSO's 193d Infantry Brigade had the delicate task of securing Fort Amador." H-hour was 0100. The PDF and Army were exchanging shots on Ft. Amador just after midnight. And who secured Amador? Elements of the 193rd.

Enough're wrong about the US forces, Completely wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Provide with exact quotation(s) from reliable source(s) that the original troops were actually involved in the fighting, I have already provided you with two quotes, you've given me none. Also please note the operation started on the 20th, and not the 19th. And, if you provide me quotations, please cite the page chapter as I have for you. Thank you.Citadel48 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I know when it started. I was there. And when I show you that units were going into position on the 19th, that proves they were already there, in place, not flying in like you claim. Second, the above contains those exact quotes. Read above. Your source is behind a paywall, so I can't even view it. My sources, which are far, far more knowledgeable on the topic than a random Newsweek reporter, are extremely reliable and are plainly viewable. Even just the last exact quote shows the 193rd was actually in the fight before H-hour. This is becoming a case of WP:IDHT.

Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You're claim of actually being there during the invasion is not backed by any evidence, or any official documentation, so it will be disregarded. They began too engage in the conflict before the official start of the operation too invade, and I have not seen a source stating they participated in any of the other events than minor skirmishes. And there weren't 27,684 of them from the start. I am also somewhat interested in how this number came up, as I have read numerous times that a total of 22,500 engaged (although it does become 27,000 when compiled with the number of paratroops dropped early on). And what is the main point in this case? Also, please provide with exact citation(s) for you're earlier claim of "There were 13,000 troops stationed in Panama before the invasion and another 14,000 were brought in for the invasion." Citadel48 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • First, not a single one of my edits is based on my personal experience. All are based on the reliable sources. I mentioned being there only because you felt the need to make a ridiculous statement acting like I didn't know when it started. I have provided sources for everything. You're simply ignoring it. Trying to assume good faith with you is pointless. You read a single civilian source and have made a series of incorrect assumptions. I'm sorry that you're not capable of reading the sources I've provided you and understand them. I can't help that. However, your single source is refuted by multiple reliable sources, so it can't be the basis for the infobox. I'd really like to see you try to take your reasoning to the Military History project and see what they say. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Random section break because it makes my life easier[edit]

@ Citadel48

  • All troops are combat trained. You are confusing "combat arms" with "combat trained". A cook is not combat arms, but they are combat trained in basic tactics, land navigation, marksmanship, etc.
  • How many in the initial invasion is not necessary for the info box. The order of battle is important but should be covered in the article. What I need to take away from the info box is that there was rough parity in numbers and total disparity in casualties, and it was a small to moderate sized battle by modern warfare standards.
  • The Battle of Berlin infobox that you referenced looks very nice. If you can come up with a comprehensive list of the weapons systems used in this engagement, I think it would make sense to list them by armored vehicles, aircraft, artillery etc. as the Berlin article does. However, if you only have a statistic for one model of one type of weapons system, then it is a work in progress, and should remain on your sandbox until it is completed. It makes no sense to list one particular model of aircraft in vacuo. I hope you are willing to work to compile this list as I believe it would be a significant improvement to the article.
  • For now, the F-117A is already mentioned in the Invasion section and there's no reason to select this weapon for the info box over the others unless for some reason these six aircraft decisively changed the course of the engagement. For example, in the first uses of tanks in WWI, it would make sense to list the number of particular tanks because they were completely revolutionary. Unfortunately for your proposed edit, by this time the F-117 had been around for about 20 years. It may be perfectly acceptable however, to use your source to quantify how may 117s there were in the section, and I suggest we do this. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It would also be helpful to not based everything you (Citadel) know off of a single article, especially when it's contradicted by the sources who'd know it best. I assure you that the US Army knows more about how many troops were there and when they were there than a Newsweek reporter. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm not entirely sure where the number on the article exactly comes from. The source cited from seems to indicate 27,900.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • With less than a 300 man difference, I'd be willing to be one of the numerous sources uses it. I'm not a fan of the number being too specific anyway. Regardless, the dispute here is that Citadel wants us to believe that only 4,500 troops took part in the invasion and none were from the 12-13,000 troops already in the country. That's the real issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
At any rate, yes 4,500 seems very low. It's essentially a brigade sized force. I'd say cite either everything or the top and bottom numbers and put the actual size of the force between 22.5k and 27.9k. The quote about 4.5k specifically is talking about paratroopers: "Had the PDF been better prepared, casualties would have been much higher among the 4,500 U.S. paratroopers, who were vulnerable to fire as they dropped from the sky." The article itself claims that: "The United States had 22,500 well-armed and highly trained troops." I can only assume that this person misread the article, because it makes it clear that they are only talking about paratroopers, which almost by definition, demands that they are a small part of the force used. They are not the "initial invasion". Perhaps they misunderstand the nature of paratroopers. They are part of the initial invasion. See D-day. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, paratroopers are not the "first to engage". Their purpose is to engage behind enemy lines to disrupt enemy attempts to disrupt the establishment of a beach or bridgehead. The objective of a beach/bridgehead is to funnel enough troops through the terrain barrier that you can hold the position and funnel more troops through. As in the case of D-day as well as the engagement at hand, these are designed to happen simultaneously. If the paratroopers land early, it alerts the enemy to the creation of a head, as well as exposing the airborne soldiers to superior numbers and supply from the enemy. Instead they must land close to identically to the main body so that they may buy time to for the main body to establish itself. They may then reconnect and resupply once they have established contact with the main body. Everyone involved is engaged, but the paratroopers buy time where the main body doesn't have to worry about overwhelming reinforcements by the enemy reserve. They are a front-guard action as it were. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Then there shouldn't be an exact number of American troops, instead of just "27,684", I believe there be "ca. 27,000 (peak)". And then, the number of Panamanian combatants ranged from 12,000 too 19,000 (and then, as cited before only 4,000-6,000 were actual combat troops, as most of the others were just police or member of the public safety department), so I believe the current section the strength of the Panamanians should changed. According the book User:Niteshift36 cited as source, the number of Panamanian combatants was 12,000 (with 4,000 actual combat troops). Citadel48 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I've already said the number is probably too exact. 27,000 is fine for the US numbers. 12,800 is fine for the Panamanian number. And the explanation about the breakdown of the numbers found in the JCS source is a good one to be put into the article. We just don't break it down in the infobox. In other words, as I've been saying, expand the article, not the infobox. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said you didn't know when it started. I simply emphasized that any actions before Dec. 20 were likely not acting on the part of Operation Just Cause, more likely just too crush resistance than too actually invade, reinstate, etc. Citadel48 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Then you were completely wrong. The actions on Dec 19 were exactly part of Operation Just Cause, part of the plan and clearly shown to be part of the plan in the source. Operation Just Cause started before H-Hour. Based on your logic, the paratroops that dropped into France before the first landing craft started weren't part of the Normandy invasion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, no, not all military personnel are trained in combat. I will use a source you will be more familiar with, (]]). Citadel48 (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, they are. Your source doesn't contradict that. All soldiers start with BCT: [6] "recruits will learn basic tactical and survival skills along with how to shoot, rappel, and march". Now predictably, IDHT is going ot kick in and you're going to demand to see a source that says everyone goes to BCT. Here you go: "Recruiters are tasked with not only finding men and women who are interested in the Army, but also helping them guage whether military service is best for them. Recruiters also guide potential candidates through the enlistment process, making sure they have everything they need up until the moment a Soldier embarks on Basic Combat Training."[7]

I also still need a source for "There were 13,000 troops stationed in Panama before the invasion and another 14,000 were brought in for the invasion." Citadel48 (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Do you not pay attention? You have been provided the source [8]. It says: "Immediately prior to the operation, American forces in Panama numbered some 13,000 troops, about the same total as the various Panamanian military and paramilitary forces." Further into the paragraph, it says: "Initial airlifts brought in a strike force of about 7,000 troops,..." Then it says "Another 7,000 soldiers followed..." 13,000 already in Panama + 7,000 in the first strike force and 7,000 followed up (14,000). Just read the sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you really impressively have no idea what you are talking about. See WP:CIR. Story time I guess. So when I joined the Army, I was enrolled in Initial Entry Training. This consists of two parts. First, is Basic Combat Training (aka boot camp). All soldiers go through BCT regardless of their Military Occupational Specialty. BCT trains you how to fight hand-to-hand, how to shoot, how to use basic fire and movement techniques, how to clear a room, how to throw a grenade, how to clean your a word, how to be a soldier. Next is Advanced Individual Training. AIT depends on your MOS. My MOS was 42A, Human Resource Specialist. So for nine weeks I learned how to do basically my job, above and beyond what I needed to know in order to hopefully kill people and hopefully not get killed. All soldiers are trained in combat. The fact that you do not know this probably means that you are not competent enough to be editing military related articles. I have to get ready for work. I will address your other issues shortly. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • TimothyJW, I've tried explaining the whole "it all starts with BCT". You've done it twice now. I am trying again. Soon, it will become a matter of ignoring it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I will disregard you're claim of having experience in & serving in the United States Military as it is not backed by any evidence or official documentation. Also, you are still wrong, not all soldiers are trained in combat. One example is the Military of Bulgaria; for several decades they have been running a construction corps program, now defunct, as the Bulgarian armed forces has changed from being a conscription-based mandatory service, too a fully professional army. The program never saw the need too train it's members as it was a waste of resources and they could simply provide protection whilst carrying out their duties, if of course, even necessary. Citadel48 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Disregard what you want. I addressed it using a source you found to be reliable. You're just wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"You're just wrong." please, I would expect a higher level of respect & maturity from a Father. I have sourced all of my claims, and am willing too provide extra sources on others. I have stopped debating the issue of the 4,500 paratroopers, as I am aware of the combinations of other soldiers present in Panama during the operation. In no way, is anything I have said meant too be disrespectful too you or anyone else, so please, treat me as I have treated you. This is a debate on how too improve the article, not an armed conflict. Citadel48 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Respect is earned. You've done nothing to earn respect. You've been disrespectful and ignored sources over and over. Do you see how many exchanges and how much time was spent to get you to finally see something (that there was more than 4,500 troops) that was blatantly obvious? You ignored the sources existing in the article. You ignored the ones I provided. Over and over, you fell back to a single Newsweek article that it turns out you were misreading. Now, you finally stop arguing what shouldn't have taken all this effort and you act like you're doing us a favor. Get a grip. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
We can argue all day about respect; but it is certain you possess a very twisted view not just of the events of the invasion, but of life itself, something quite scary especially considering you claim too be a father, but understandable considering that you have never mentioned being married. Regardless; I have not ignored you're sources, I have reviewed them (as evidenced earlier), and have found very supportive of both you're & my claims. The source gave weight too you're claims of the operation being an effort between outside & internal elements within Panama; but have also supported my claims of the Panamanian combatants of not all being trained/armed, (as the sources never stated whether they were trained or armed, only that they could be "classified as combat troops." Citadel48 (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You might be the most literal person I've talked to here. You have no idea what my views on live itself are. All you've done is read a couple of userboxes. There are many things not mentioned in my userboxes, making your "research" horribly faulty. However, given your inability to read a simple article and understand the context, I'm not surprised. This discussion is over. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is this even an argument??[edit]

Can't we just get along guys? we're all part of the same team after all, and we are all trying to achieve ONE goal:Making Wikipedia a better and more knowledgable place. Adding the numbers of F-117A Nighthawks is illogical and irrelevant, numerous aircraft and vehicles were involved in the Operation, that is the same thing as saying for example, the number of M-16 Assault Rifles involved alone.Nevertheless, The numbers of the F-117's exclusively should be cut from the article, to make it better and avoid any further quarrels. On a side note, ALL military personnel go through Basic Training, which includes basic combat training as well, to say that some military personnel do not go through combat training is Ludicrous.The way i see it, if you are gonna add specific info about the F-117A,add some about the HMMVW,AH-64,and other craft used in Operation Just Cause, it's only fair, otherwise, haveing specific info on a certain vehicle is useless and takes up infobox space, if anything, add it to a Trivia section or something.

Y'all have a nice day! --Luis Santos24 (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not what we are currently debating. Thank you for you're concern, though. We are debating the latter topic, and I have responded.

Also, firstly, not all military personnel in each country go through BMT, and the ones that do go through different types of training (some countries may do simple fitness training other do firearms, & survival training etc) depending on the countries standard. There is no single universally recognized BMT course recognized by all countries. Citadel48 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Actually, part of that IS what we're discussing. You have made the absurd claim that US soldiers aren't trained in combat unless they have a combat arms occupation. So far, you've already had 3 experienced editors tell you that you're wrong. You just refuse to listen to anything and keep saying "show me a source" when you've already been shown one (or more than one). Niteshift36 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And we're not talking about what other countries go through. We're talking about the US. The US was involved, not Bulgaria. We've talked about no other nation's BCT. And while you're busy "dismissing claims", you totally missed that not-too-subtle point. Once again, your ignorance and unwillingness to listen wasted a lot of time. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Closure of discussion[edit]

This discussion clearly has ceased to be productive, and probably did so a while ago. Citadel48, you have had three other editors here say that your edits don't make sense. Unless there is something else to say, other than rehashing the same arguments over and over, and your own commitment to WP:IDHT, I am going to call consensus and close this discussion. You have misread your sources, made flatly false claims, and put forward completely irrelevant arguments. There are good arguments to say that your proposed edit doesn't make sense, and WP:RS to say that your source is at best misinterpreted. Furthermore, you have begun to completely stray from argument at all to make appeals to personal morality (I would expect a higher level of respect & maturity from a Father) and ad hominem attacks (it is certain you possess a very twisted view not just of the events of the invasion, but of life itself). This is not acceptable and not productive. Please see WP:IDHT, WP:NPA and WP:CIR. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, User:Niteshift36 has been the one who first began too be disrespectful. I have not made any false claims, all have had a source, and when you & Niteshift36 pointed out too me that I misinterpreted the information, I ceased too mention it. This discussion is still ongoing, so I would respect if you would cease interfering with it's course. Thank you. Citadel48 (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You've brought nothing new to this discussion. Consensus is clear and not in your favor. If you have something new, then maybe it will need discussed, but this matter is settled. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is over. Your original claim regarding troop numbers has been shown to be a complete misreading. Your original edit to add extraneous information to the infobox has reached consensus. You are veering into military training in Bulgaria (completely irrelevant) and Basic Marksmanship Training (again showing your lack of understanding of military training), both of which have nothing to do with the original issue. Consensus has been reached. The information, if added, should be added to the body of the article, and not the infobox. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Troop numbers (or, Something productive emerges)[edit]

Disregarding all the rest, I do think we should change the troop numbers for the US to 22.5k-27.9k. Per the three sources provided by me, the one source by Citadel, and the original source from It is rare to non-existent to see a troop count down to the man. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should also change the Panamanian numbers, as even the source indicated that not all of them could be classified as combat troops. I also believe we must include (in the infobox) how many of the American casualties were due to friendly fire. Citadel48 (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

We are aware. See discussion above. This content should be included in the body of the article. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As I've said all along, the infobox should be a snapshot of the article, not the entire explanation. I have already changed the US number to a less specific, reliably sourced number, as I did with the Panamanian number. I'll always give more weight to DoD numbers regarding number of troops than I will to civilian numbers. Discussions about the break down should be contained in the article, not the infobox. Additionally, any discussion of the casualty specifics should be in the article, not the infobox. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The book Niteshift36 provided even states itself the numbers of Panamanian troops, simply including a more accurate number and "inc. 4,000 "combat troops" is not an "entire explanation." Also, why not include in the infobox how many of the USM personnel died of friendly fire? Citadel48 (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why are you so against putting something in the body of the article? The infobox is to hit the highlights. That's what infoboxes are for. Details go into the body of the article. That's why we have a body. Think of the infobox as a movie trailer and the article as the film. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Then, may we add a "see below" wiki link?

I think if we do, the part for the friendly fire goes too the casualties section, and the Panamanian side of the infobox gets changed in terms of numbers (12,800 vs 14,000) and the American numbers get changed too (20,000-30,000). Citadel48 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • No. It's common knowledge that if you want details, you read the article. We don't need to tell people to "see below". Where do you get a US number of 20,000? Again I ask, why do you avoid putting things into the article body? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As you said, people do not want too be overwhelmed with information. And then that way, instead of "cramming" the infobox, we can just redirect the reader too a more detailed section. Citadel48 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's needless. It clutters up the box more than needed. Again I ask, why do you avoid putting things into the article body? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the sources have the numbers all over the place, so, taking the numbers they provide, I would change the USM numbers too "22,000-28,000."

  • Do they really? What source says 22? Which one says 28? Why would I take a troop number from the HuffPo, or PBS over the US military? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would Timothy mention it if it's a unreliable source?, even he agreed there should not be a single figure for the number of American troops. Citadel48 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Pay attention. I didn't say HuffPo etc weren't reliable sources. I said there are better sources. The daily newspaper in my city is a reliable source, but that doesn't make it a better source than the DoD on matters pertaining to number of troops. Your latest edits aren't consistent with what we have discussed here and you're speculating in other areas. Additionally, you need to stop marking your edits as minor when they aren't. It's deceptive and bad faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I view minor edits as below 5,000 kb. Also, I have all my material sourced. Timothy agreed earlier that there shouldn't be one number, that's consensus. Citadel48 (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Citadel48, you don't have the option of viewing edits below 5k kb as minor. There is a definition of what a minor edit is. See Help:Minor edit, which I have already pointed you to on your talk page. Look at it this way, marking your edits as minor when they are clearly not, only gives the impression that you don't know what you are doing, and probably makes it less likely that other editors are going to take you seriously.
Most importantly, marking non-minor edits on minor can screw with Wikipedia. For example, your edits on articles and comments on talk pages may not appear on someone's watchlist if they have it set to ignore minor edits. If I change my settings you basically disappear and I have no idea this conversation is happening. It also can be seen as deceptive, like you're trying to hide something or slip your edits under the radar. I don't think you're acting in bad faith, but others might.
  • Agreed. Stop marking non-minor edits as minor. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Niteshift36, first off, back up off my PBS yo. But seriously, I don't quite put them in the same category as HuffPo. I wasn't trying at the time to find stellar sources; I was simply trying to find multiple "ok" sources to establish that the number was mostly likely in the mid to upper 20s. Actually PBS agrees with the Army. I'm willing to keep 27k and give both cites, and on the other end accept the current wording on troop numbers from Panama. That seems like a good compromise to me. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand me. I'm not saying HoffPo or PBS aren't reliable sources. I'm simply saying they're not the best sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Also @ Citadel48, two people agreeing does not a consensus make. I called consensus earlier because (1) three more experienced editors agreed, (2) you seemed to be arguing for things that were plainly false (like the US using conscripts in the year 2000, and further using untrained troops, which we haven't done since the Spanish-American War, and those were volunteers), and (3) your argument seems based almost entirely on a single source that was paywalled and already shown to have been misinterpreted. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed and I'm about to head to ANI with this if it doesn't cease. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
First, please stop using a bullet for all your comments. It's...weird. Second, where is your source for the Panamanian numbers? I apologize if I've missed it. I'm kindof a latecomer to this debate. Third, you do not have consensus to revert two edits when I have offered the edit (which appears to be factually true, if stylistically debatable) as a term in a compromise. I will not compromise on stealth jet numbers or numbers or friendly fire casualties, but this may potentially offer succinct insight. Remember, if you are not willing to compromise, you become the bad guy. You have been right on many things, and I have backed you on them. But that does't mean you are right on everything. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The 12,800 number is fine, and easily sourced. I'm good with using it. What we don't need is the parenthesis about how many combat troops). That would make a perfectly good thing to insert into the article, but not into the infobox. Same with the mentions about the stealth fighter or friendly fire numbers. Great for article (and already in there), but not for the info box. As a side note, the current source says 2 deaths and 19 injuries due to freindly fire. It says others will be investigated. Without any update, I can't see a reason to speculate on the "as many as" number. As for bullet points...I use them. It prevents confusion when people don't indent enough. Sorry they bother you. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Casualty entry[edit]

Currently, the article says: :"Twenty-three U.S. servicemembers were killed and 325 were wounded. Reportedly as many as 60 percent of the American casualties may have been due to friendly fire, with nine of the 23 U.S. fatalities due too friendly fire." Huh? 60% of the US casualties (325) would be 195 people. Even the latter part of the second sentence contradicts that.....9 is 40% of 23. And of course this goes back to the single paywall source. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Math is hard. Should probably remove. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What does the Newsweek source say? We already have a LA Times source I was fine with, but I can't see the Newsweek one. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The NEWSWEEK article says that there were %60 friendly fire casualties, then, that's why later mention the U.S. militaries casualty count. Citadel48 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • What EXACTLY does it say. You haven't shown yourself to be too accurate at interpreting what the article says. The math doesn't work. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's why we include both the NEWSWEEK casualty count & the U.S. Military count. Citadel48 (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I will ask you again, what exactly does the Newsweek source say? Please repost the paragraph, in its entirety, here. The math doesn't add up and you have not been very accurate in your summations. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Math is math. The math here doesn't add up. That's a simple fact. Either you are misrepresenting it or the reporter is an idiot. I'm betting the reporter isn't an idiot. Since you're unwilling to share the entire text, as I've requested more than once, there is no reason to believe that the source is being accurately represented. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"As many as 60 percent of the 347 American casualties may have been due to "friendly fire." Well-placed military sources told NEWSWEEK that nine of the 23 U.S. soldiers killed were accidentally slain by comrades. The apparent reason: the Americans did most of the shooting." Citadel48 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • That's not what you've put in the article. You put it in like it was a widely accepted fact and left the contradicting numbers in. Once again, you act like Newsweek is the holy grail and that every word they print is infallible. The vast majority of reliable sources are not putting forth this 60% figure. It is well outside of the range most sources are using. We can't pick one extreme view, based on some anonymous source, and give it the same weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


I can't find anything about the lawsuit from the Spanish journalists family except that it was filed. We have no idea if it was dismissed, settled, anything. Just saying it was filed sort of gives the impression that the US did something wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think "wrong" in warfare is kindof relative. At any rate, to assert this without a source is WP:OR. I don't suppose you speak Spanish? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's say "culpable", nice legal term. It is true that the family filed a suit. That's not in dispute at all. But we have no outcome and I can't find one. His relatively common name doesn't help matters. I even tried some of the journalism sites but can't find anything. We all know that just filing a suit isn't evidence of anything. Hence my concern. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, by far the U.S. Military burned down houses, etc, so we already know they did something wrong. What changes do you recommend? Citadel48 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • What got burned down and whether it was wrong in your opinion isn't the topic. The topic is the lawsuit. Without showing the conclusion of it, we have a POV issue. My suggestion is to find the conclusion. If you can't, we can't just tell part of the story and act like it's neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) We could say culpable, or we could say nothing, because we don't actually have a source, and saying "culpable" without a source is WP:OR. (2) Burning down houses is bad, but we burned down Tokyo, and about 60 other Japanese cities, and basically all of Korea, and Vietnam, and Cambodia, and a significant portion of Germany. You kindof have to put these things in perspective. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I meant saying "culpable" in our discussion here, not in the actual article. I should have been more clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It is neutral; it simply states there was a lawsuit. Citadel48 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, but 25 years later, we should know the result. It's not like it's on-going. It could have quite possibly been dismissed for lack of cause or dismissed for lack of legal standing. If we're going to tell part of the story, we should tell all of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but as it turns out, we don't actually know what the result was. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So back to my original question, can we only tell part of the story, a part that leaves a (possibly false) negative impression and still say we're being neutral? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Our job isn't too make things seem good or bad, if it's factual information, with sources, etc, it is posted. Citadel48 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • But telling half the story isn't neutral, which IS our job. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is no other half, we cannot just not mention cited facts relating too the topic. Citadel48 (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A hint can be found here: [9]
Maruja Torres was one the journalists that were there the night Juan Antonio Rodriguez Moreno ("Juantxu" Rodriguez) was killed. In that article she compares the death of Spanish journalist José Couso in Irak in 2003 with Juantxu's in Panama. She says:
No hubo protección para Jose Couso ni para los periodistas, españoles o no, que cayeron en Irak-2003. Ni antes ni después de muertos. El Imperio, esta vez, no reconoce ni pide perdón. Con Juantxu lo hicieron, previo juicio: eso sí, ni un puñetero dólar; no se van a dedicar a indemnizar a cuanta gente mataron cuando les salió de las narices. Pero pidieron disculpas. "It was a tragic mistake", llegó a escribirse en la revista Time.
Which can be translated as: "There was no protection for Jose Couso nor for all the journalists, Spanish or not, that fell in Irak-2003. Not before and not after their deaths. The Empire, this time, does not recognize errors nor asks for forgiveness. They did it with Juantxu, after a trial, although without a freaking dollar: they won't compensate every single person they killed when things went awry. But they did apologized. "It was a tragic mistake", Time magazine printed."
More about the incident (in Spanish) here: [10][11]
I hope it helps. --Langus TxT 04:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In other words, the lawsuit did not result in a finding of any culpability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It says trial, so, what started as a lawsuit turned into a trial?? doesn't seem like them not finding any culpability. Citadel48 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you kidding? Trials happen all the time and people are found not guilty or not liable. The fact that it says "without a freaking dollar" (no money) and "But they did apologized" (not a finding. Of course they apologized, it was an accident. Anything else in there, you're unrealistically inferring. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You yourself claim writing lawsuit would make the U.S. seem bad, which I would be fine with if it were not true. Citadel48 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Again, that's taken out of context and again, I don't know whether you're incapable of understanding the difference or unwilling, but in either case, I won't bother explaining it to you. The matter has been settled already. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Just like to point out that you are both one revert away from violating WP:3RR. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I won't make any more edits to the article for now. I do strongly object to an unproven allegation from a documentary that set out with a POV being used to put forth an allegation that no other news source is making. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The documentary (several minutes prior too the part about the journalist), also mentions 19 complaints allegedly filled too the United States Southern Command about executions, etc. Citadel48 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Please listen to what I'm actually saying. Complaints can be filed. That doesn't make them factually true. I can complain to ANI right now that you're really an alien from the Horsehead Nebula. Does that make it true? Plenty of reputable news outlets reported that a lawsuit was filed, but none of them are reporting the part about being intentionally shot etc. The NYT and LA Times have never been shy about going after the US govt. They've sued the govt themselves. The fact that they're not even reporting that allegation should be an indicator of how far fetched it is. That documentary is biased. It intended to be biased. It never claimed to be neutral. It makes a lot of unproven allegations, including this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Or it can be an indicator of how well hidden it was, do not make assumptions yourself. It's a published allegation. Citadel48 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not how it works. Just because a single source said it doesn't mean we have carte blanche to put it in there. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that complaints were filed may be notable in its own right. See Sexism and conscription where the SCOTUS cases are notable even though we know for a fact they were decided against. The appropriate course of action here seems to be to look for more sources. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • If a case sets precedence, then it's more notable. We have no indication that this even went to trial or had any verdict. BTW, of course Citadel ignored the 3RR and forced that edit back in. While we're discussing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Citadel48 You cannot subvert WP:3RR by making a manual edit that is the same as if you had reverted. If you do this again you will be reported for edit warring, and could face sanctions. This is your second warning. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • And that section just keeps getting edited more and more. Clearly, Citadel has no intention of observing the 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I propose that we ask at NPOVN if including the allegation that only the documentary makes is NPOV when no other source even reports that allegation. We leave it out of the article until we get input from there. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, so another editor found a first person account from another journalist that was with the one killed.[12]. It says, in part: "We ran to the car two American tanks were followed by two trucks supplying the hotel itself full of Yankee military. Finally, an American military truck. The tanks began to strafe the hotel, shooting at soldiers. Those of us on the ground saw someone fall, did not know who he was, bullets skimmed the body.". there is no mention of US soldiers trying to prohibit anything from being photographed, a morgue or him being singled out. Just that he was killed. Again, this was a fellow journalist, from the same paper, that was an eyewitness. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This account [13], again a first person account by a fellow Spanish journalist, shows that a US tank returned fire in the general direction of gunfire. Nothing about him being singled out, photographing somethign prohibited, etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Watch the film, and hear it's allegations. Citadel48 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I've seen it. Anyone can make an allegation. This allegation is without merit. It's conspiracy theory, which is why the legitimate media wasn't repeating it. This lone voice in the wilderness is bordering on WP:FRINGE. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Citadel48, the solution here is simple. To overcome the accusation that the claim is WP:FRINGE, you need to find other secondary sources that also cover it. The topic of the lawsuits seems like it may be important, and we should do our research. You should see if there are WikiProjects on law (there surely must be) that could offer some help in finding how these turned out. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because we do not know the outcome does not mean we shouldn't include it. Citadel48 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that is seems like WP:FRINGE when there is literally one source that covers it and nothing else. Maybe you could try It would be helpful if we could find what jurisdiction the lawsuit was filed in. Was it filed in US or Spanish court for example. This could help find more information on the topic and verify that one reporter didn't just muck up his report. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
As you were. The suit seems to have been filed in US Court. So there should be public records relating to the case available. It's just a matter of finding them. Pacer is probably a good place to start. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Cannot do it as I do not possess an account on the website. Citadel48 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Wait: Just for the sake of clarity. Nobody is challenging the reporter was killed. Nobody is challenging the fact that a suit was filed. The NY Times covered that. I have expressed a need for a conclusion. But what I'm contending is bordering on FRINGE is the allegation made by a single, very biased source, that the reporter was intentionally killed because he photographed something. The fact that the rest of the media has refused to make that allegation should mean something. Even the eyewitness accounts from his friends don't make the claim. We can't give equal weight to an uncorroborated allegation based solely on the say so of a documentary that clearly had an axe to grind with the US govt. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the documentary says he was shot for photographing a morgue, something that would worsen the U.S. militaries reputation, secondly only United States Military photographers were allowed too take photos, thus are the reasons it could be true. Then, another one of the journalists in the Marriott Hotel in Panama City on the night he was shot also said they believed he was purposefully killed. Citadel48 (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, a SINGLE source says that is why he was shot. Just because someone said it doesn't mean it goes into an encyclopedia. Second, no, photos weren't limited to only US military photographers. That's a flat out lie. There were reporters all over and there were hundreds of news reports and photos published from the events to show that. Even this guy's pictures were published. His friend's accounts are being used in this discussion. Saying that only "United States Military photographers" were allowed to take pictures is just plain ridiculous. Just for fun, riddle me this: If they killed him intentionally, why wouldn't they retrieve his camera? By leaving it there, they allowed his collegues to recover it and the morgue photo was published anyway. It would have been incredibly simple to go to the body, pretend to give aid and destroy the camera or confiscate it. Regardless, this is a single source making an outlandish allegation that no reputable news agency will touch. It's FRINGE. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Then should we add it in the media references section? Citadel48 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Normally I'd say yes to put it in the external links section, but since the film is already used as a reference in another part of the article, it's not appropriate for the external links section. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for trying. There is a very good chance that it was dismissed and never made it beyond the filing stage, especially if it was decided that they had no real legal standing to base the claim on. That's where my hesitation lies. Anyone can file a claim for anything, no matter how baseless (like a prisoner filing an 8th Amendment claim because he was being made to use paper plates). This incident was a tragic accident and, because the deceased was notable, should be mentioned in the article (sans conspiracy theory), but I'm not convinced that the lawsuit should be mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I haven't been tracking most of the previous developments on this article; however, from what I've read IRT this issue I agree with Niteshift here. Unless we have definitive information about the outcome of the lawsuit mentioning it does seem one sided to me. At any rate I don't really think this article is the place to cover the incident in any detail as this would seem to be UNDUEWEIGHT. If the individual is notable and there is significant coverage of the theories about his death then they should be covered in his biography, not in a high level article about the overall operation. For this article I'd say mention his death and leave it there. Anotherclown (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Rule of thumb...If multiple reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found at only one publication, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or is a singular POV .

I am not intending for the theories too be included, only the lawsuit, which was mentioned numerous times. Citadel48 (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The part from the documentary about being intentionally killed because of pictures is the theory we're talking about. You forced it back in multiple times. So since you now have no intention to have theories in, and multiple editors have agreed that it doesn't belong, I'll take care of cleaning that up. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

An edit from an uninvolved party[edit]

I can get behind Visviva's edit of the disputed section. It covers the issue succinctly, and doesn't pretend to be able to read the minds of soldiers on the ground. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I made a minor edit and thanked him for it. I'm good with the current form. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And of course Citadel goes back and inserts his own version without any discussion at all. This crap is getting old. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
You're pro-American sentiment is getting old

It should be included if they believe he was killed by the US military, and just because you believe the fact a lawsuit was filled makes the US seem bad is not a valid reason for it too removed with administrative claim. You yourself even claim too have served in the military, even specifically in Panama, which should show that you are by far most likely too be biased. Citadel48 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • And your agenda is getting old. Have you even read the edit I put in? My edit says "claiming he was killed by American troops". I don't remove that fact that the family makes that claim, I just put it in a more logical place and without your obsession with putting things in parenthesis. For you to pretend like I'm trying to hide the fact that the family made that claim in some attempt to be "pro-American" is not only factually incorrect, but dishonest. Additionally, you keep saying that the other reporter said that Americans killed him. The reporter said that they couldn't tell where the shots were coming from and that after a tank fired, he was dead. It does NOT say that he was killed by the tank. You are simply paraphrasing and doing it wrong. Also, you keep changing the administrative claim to "lawsuit". What we have found, using better sources, was that they didn't file a lawsuit, they actually filed an administrative claim. Once again, a better source says one thing, but you insist on putting all your editing into one source that uses a different word. The uninvolved Visviva made a good edit. Timothy is happy with it. I'm happy with it. The only thing I did was move the order of the allegation. You, of course, can't be happy with it. You still insist on marking clearly non-minor edits as minor and that dishonest action is rapidly becoming bad faith, especially when 2 editors have addressed it with you. And you should really stop insisting on making edits that use poor grammar. It's "to", not "too". You've done it more than once, so it wasn't a typo, it is ignorance. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that it was likely dismissed, but that without the conclusion, we're only telling the part of the story that makes one party look bad. You believe mentioning a lawsuit will make the U.S. look bad, please note the lawsuit was filled in June 1990, whilst the claim too DoD was made sometime before March 1990, as witnessed by the Spanish yearbook of international law, and the Note Verbale sent in March.

The sentence in which you wrote claiming he was killed by American troops makes it seem as though only his family believed so, even though in the Note Verbale you may clearly see that the Spanish government also shares the belief. Citadel48 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Taking what I said about a different part out of context isn't helping you here. If you bothered to look, since we have a conclusion to it, I have no objection at all of having it included. So this BS line of reasoning is moot. And it doesn't matter who shares the believe, the FAMILY filed the suit and made the claim. That claim was rejected. Then Spain tried it again, on behalf of the family, but not based on any new evidence, just based on their request for help. At that point, the US pointed out there wasn't even proof the US killed him. They filed an administrative claim, saying that they claimed he was killed by US troops is completely correct. That's what they claimed. None of this addresses your insistence of putting in some speculation from another reporter, in parenthesis. Much like you've done with me (and with the Newsweek source), you summarized what was said and didn't get the context right. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

So tell me, what was the actual context in what you said, then? If the Spanish government believes so, it means too the reader that it's more than a family looking for a party too blame. Speculation? I have a whole article saying it was lawsuit, showing dates, etc. Citadel48 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Explaining the difference to you is pointless. I've realized that you are either incapable or unwilling to grasp the difference. I'll leave it to you to decide which one is the case. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about anymore. I've been distracted by No Gun Ri. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Timothy: I had this version: "...and a Spanish freelance press photographer on assignment for El Pais, Juan Antonio Rodriguez Moreno. Rodriguez was killed outside of the Marriott Hotel in Panama City early on December the 21st. In June, 1990, his family filed an administrative claim for wrongful death against the United States Government, claiming he was killed by American troops. When the Rodriguez claim was rejected by the US government, in 1992 the Spanish government sent a Note Verbale extending diplomatic protection to Rodriguez and demanding compensation on behalf of his family. However, the US government again rejected the claim, disputing both its liability for warzone deaths in general and whether Rodriguez had been killed by US rather than Panamanian gunfire.

This is Citadels: "...and a Spanish freelance press photographer on assignment for El Pais, Juan Antonio Rodriguez Moreno. Rodriguez was killed (according too his colleagues, by gunfire from an American tank), outside of the Marriott Hotel in Panama City early on December the 21st. In June, 1990, his family filed an lawsuit, claiming wrongful death against the United States Government. When the Rodriguez claim was rejected by the US government, in 1992 the Spanish government sent a Note Verbale extending diplomatic protection to Rodriguez and demanding compensation on behalf of his family. However, the US government again rejected the claim, disputing both its liability for warzone deaths in general and whether Rodriguez had been killed by US rather than Panamanian gunfire."
My version doesn't have the part in parenthesis and where in the paragraph it says the claim is that the US killed him. His version insists on taking what a witness said (that he couldn't tell who was shooting and that after a tank fired, he was dead) and deciding that it means that the tank killed him. He also insists on removing the more correct "administrative claim" in favor of "lawsuit". Frankly, I was pretty happy with the uninvolved addition, made a slight edit and was good to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

United States' justification for the invasion[edit]

Shouldn't this section be on international law, rather than US domestic politics?Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The international law part, which doesn't support the US very much, is pretty well covered under the international reaction section isn't it?Especially since the US didn't seek any international approval. So it had the reasons it felt justified, invaded, then there was international reaction and those pointing out the international law issues. Chronological does seem to work.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources are good[edit]

I have removed the parenthetical from the paragraph about the journalist. I don't particularly care if it's true or not; it's not supported by the provided source, which nowhere says anything about tanks.

I have removed the wording from the same paragraph calling it a "lawsuit". Again, this is not supported by the source. The word "sue" does not necessitate that it be a "lawsuit". For something to be a lawsuit, it needs to involve a court of law. If it does not involve a court of law, it is not a lawsuit. Thus the "law" in "lawsuit".

If these changes are undone without providing sufficient sourcing, I will undo them. If this results in an edit war I will happily go to ANI.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I have no intention of changing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving list of units[edit]

Any opinions on moving the list of US units to a separate location? It adds a lot of length that isn't really needed, especially since the bulk of units aren't notable in and of themselves. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Using the term "so-called"[edit]

So what would you like to discuss about it Glrx? You've reverted twice in a short period of time and given me a bogus 3RR warning, but you've failed to express why you think the term needs removed. I asked you to discuss and you dodged it by claiming that "the way it works" is that I have to start the discussion. Fine, here it is.....this is where you can discuss why you've reverted twice without explaining why it needs removed in either deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Emt1299d clearly stated that your introduction of "so-called" was a "Not needed insertion".[14] My reverts seconded that viewpoint.
You have not given any reason to say "so-called" in Wikipedia's voice.
I see no reason to use an unsourced WP:POV term for a report that hasn't been produced yet.
Glrx (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Emt1299d used a canned summary and it was incorrect. It was clearly not vandalism or a test edit. He has not contested the revert and went so far as to thank me for the revert edit. What you have is sources repeating what the biased originator of the source is calling it. The panel, which has a stated agenda, is calling it a "truth report", but that's their name for it. The very name implies that there was a lie that needs corrected and that's an opinion on their part. "So-called" is not POV. It indicates that this panel is calling it that name. It makes no judgement on the accuracy of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)