Talk:United States invasion of Panama

United States' justification for the invasion
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
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
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)
 * Raising this again. If there's no objection, I'm moving them. 5 years is a long enough wait for input.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Using the term "so-called"
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". 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States invasion of Panama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615114306/http://www.mountainhome.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4278 to http://www.mountainhome.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4278
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060421073615/http://www.critica.com.pa/archivo/historia/f14-01.html to http://www.critica.com.pa/archivo/historia/f14-01.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213081648/http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/963-1/ to http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/963-1/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/29/america/LA-GEN-Panama-US-Invasion.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/21/panama.invasion.ap/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1089768.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040515220517/http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/conflicts%2058%20west/conflicts%20west%20%20pages/wars%20conflicts%20west%20map%2053.htm to http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/conflicts%2058%20west/conflicts%20west%20%20pages/wars%20conflicts%20west%20map%2053.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do we give a non-notable author his own paragraph?
A non-notable author named Stewart Brewer wrote a non-notable book called "Borders and Bridges: A History of U.S.-Latin American Relations" Why are we giving an entire paragraph to his opinion? There are many non-notable people who have written non-notable books that are still reliable sources. Why does this man merit inclusion over any of those? Why is his POV being given that weight? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36 invented his complaint from thin air. "Notability" of a scholar is NOT a Wikipedia criteria--we have the ingredients we want --a scholarly book from a major publisher (Praeger) and favorable reviews testify to its RS status. It is included in a major review article in the leading scholarly journal on Lat Am in its coverage of the 8 most important recent books in English and Spanish in Recent Works On U.S.-Latin American Relations," Latin American Research Review'' (2009) pp 247-56. The book is a well-regarded scholarly survey that presents an important position.  Inclusion is required by WP:NPOV rules. Rjensen (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A textbook publisher. It may have been reviewed someplace, but how you go from that to being "required" is the real invention here. We're not required to pick out a random quote from a random book and put it in this article. His (lack of) notability is a factor. Yes, non-notables can be used, but there's usually a reason for it. Just picking out this guy and saying we're required doesn't wash. There are many authors that have an opinion. If this guy was notable or the book had received a lot of significant coverage by reliable third party sources, there may be a case for it. But trying to invoke NPOV improperly doesn't do it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Weapons and advisors (failed verification)
The infobox cites page 6 of Ronald H. Cole's Operation Just Cause: The Planning and Execution of Joint Operations in Panama for the claim that Cuba, Nicaragua and Libya provided "Weapons and advisors" to Panama in the conflict. The source does not support this claim. It says that in the years leading up to the war Libya provided economic assistance to Panama in exchange for military access, while Cuba and Nicaragua provided weapons and military advisors.

While it is possible that those weapons and military advisors were involved in this particular conflict, the source does not say so, and it is misleading to include them without a source to support the claim; otherwise, it makes it seems like Cuba and Nicaragua actively supported Panama in the conflict, when that may not necessarily have been the case. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have removed the above entries, as well as further unsourced additions (USSR and North Korea). --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The 37 TFW is in error
The 37 TFW never had the F-117 stealth fighter, and was in the start of selling all their F-4's in 1989, when the invasion started. The base was decommissioned in 1991. The link in the article actually goes to the 37th Training Wing, not a fighter wing. Also, the 7th AMU from Holloman AFB took several F-15's there, which is not listed. I know, because people I worked with at the 7th went, I was supposed to go the next day on the second wave, but we weren't needed. MacD723 (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Addition of 4 F-16's from Hill AFB, Utah.
 * I was there with the 388TFW EMU (Equipment Maintenance Unit) from Hill AFB, Utah as an ABDR (Air battle damage structural repairman) on the flightline during the attack. We were there with 4 f-16's supporting air to air and air to ground support. I believe the aircraft were from the 34th TFW but the 388th at that time supported the 4th, 34th, and 421st squadrons. I notice that there is no mention of the F-16's, the 388TFW or any squadron noting the F-16 activity. I may be able to provide pictures and orders. 2601:681:577E:460:A03C:ACD2:B1D6:80D9 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)