Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1

Manuel Noriega


This article is about Manuel Noriega, a colorful and controversial figure in Central American history. He was a military strongman in Panama, and a large player in hemispheric politics of the 1980s. The article has passed an A-Class review from the military history project, and a detail GA review before that. It failed to attract any commentary at FAC, where an editor has said they had substantive concerns with the article that they'd like to express at peer review. Any other constructive critique is, of course, welcome. Speaking for myself, I'd like to see this ready for FAC by the end, but at the very least ensure that the A-class and GA tags are justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

SG review
Based on my review of this version from September 13, the issues are extensive. A deeper dive into the many unused sources is needed, and a top-to-bottom rewrite to better reflect scholarly, Spanish-language and a wider diversity of (overlooked) sources is needed. This could help lower POV resulting from the excessive use of one non-scholarly source, as well as help address some factual errors and end up with more of an actual biography about Noriega. There is also some paraphrasing which may not rise to the level of copyvio, but is a concern. The main problems stem from sources used versus those not used, and particularly from the over-reliance on Dinges's book, Our Man in Panama—a work described as non-scholarly by book reviews, and yet upon which most of this article depends. The overuse of Dinges, and the underuse or complete absence of some other sources, renders this article less a bio of Noriega than an article that could be titled, "U.S. intervention in Panama according to one journalist who had a book to sell". A good deal of the content specific to the US invasion could be summarized more tightly, (it has its own article) to make room for more content about Noriega himself that is missing. More information about Noriega as a Panamanian and related to Panama is needed. Extremely important matters in Panama are omitted. In the version I reviewed, journal and book sources mostly used are:
 * Dinges 97, Kempe 32, Galvan 25, Koster 9, Gilboa 8, Scranton 3, Buckley 3.

This use of Dinges and Kempe is, unfortunately, in a reverse relationship according to reviews, which hold Scranton's work to be the most scholarly (she has scores of other journal-published Panamanian literature that does not appear to have been consulted). Dinges and Kempe are held to be inferior journalistic (non-scholarly) accounts, mentioned in both the Millett review and the Metz review. Historians like Ropp are never cited, a good deal of Scranton’s work is overlooked, and there are dozens of untapped but useful sources mentioned by Metz. Even if there is an overall absence of scholarly sources, a deeper dive into the literature, and Spanish-language sources, is needed to lower the Dinges POV. News sources used are mostly the BBC, The New York Times, and The Atlantic (which is given extreme UNDUE weight in the Legacy section). There is an almost complete lack of Spanish-language sources and context, which impacts factual accuracy. An additional problem is that there are entire sections of the article that rely heavily or exclusively on one source, presenting the opinions of one author on given topics, when many are available. There is such an extreme over reliance on Dinges that I don’t think this article can be fixed without considerable investment of time into reading volumes of untapped literature and then undertaking a complete rewrite to remove Dinges POV.

A. Sample problem with sourcing
Here is one example (which is only an example, and is typical of what I found in many cases):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/world/americas/manuel-antonio-noriega-dead-panama.html
 * Text from NYT: "Even as American concerns about his cartel relationships grew, Mr. Noriega reached out to the White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver L. North during the Iran-contra affair, meeting with him in September 1986 in London, according to notebooks of Colonel North’s obtained by the National Security Archive through the Freedom of Information Act."
 * Text in article: Noriega had a working relationship with U.S. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North by 1985.

(The difference between what the more neutral NYT says, and what our article says, is Dinges.) More concerning:
 * Text from NYT: "Noriega offered to assassinate Sandinista leaders or sabotage them in exchange for Colonel North's help in repairing Mr. Noriega's deteriorating image in Washington."
 * Text in article: Noriega offered to help North assassinate or sabotage Sandinista leaders in return for North helping Noriega improve his image with the U.S. government.

An awfully close paraphrase of the more neutral NYT text has a few words altered that results in reflecting Dinges's POV, converting Noriega from the principal actor in an assassination to North. This, and similar, is enough to warrant a POV tag on the article, and re-evaluation of its GA and MILHIST A-class status.

B. Sample problems with lack of Panamanian POV and sourcing

 * Text in article: Whether Noriega's parents were ever married isn't clear (sourced to Dinges)
 * Text in article: During his time in the Instituto Nacional he met his older brother Luis, a socialist activist and also a student at the school: Manuel had not previously met his siblings. (sourced to Dinges and Kempe)
 * There is nothing unusual about half-siblings and out-of-wedlock birth during this time period in Latin America, and there is no reason to obscure/weasle that his parents weren't married, and that Luis Carlos Noriega Hurtado was half-brother to Manual Antonio Noriega Moreno (as evidenced in their different surnames, and specified in many Spanish-language sources, and even English sources), and that MAN didn't even know he had a half-brother (or siblings) before meeting him in high school. I can find no other source that expresses any doubt that MAN's parents were not married, nor can I understand any reason to defer to Dinges on weasling this.  Since MAN put his half-brother in an important administrative position, the full name of Luis Carlos Noriega Hurtado should probably be used in the article, as things like this aid in further searching for sources.

C. A sample of POV introduced via SYNTH

 * Noriega's rule became increasingly repressive,[25] even as the U.S. government of Ronald Reagan began relying on him in its covert efforts to undermine Nicaragua's Sandinista government.[21] The U.S. accepted Barletta's election, and signalled a willingness to cooperate with him, despite being aware of the flaws in the election process.[66][67]

Setting aside the sources omitted (which discuss MIXED signals as interpreted by Noriega, and Reagan’s repeated attempts to correct the signals), there is SYNTH here. Noriega became increasingly repressive is one thing, that was noted either in 83 or in 85 by Reagan (and the world) according to multiple sources, including the BBC (84) as cited here. But two thoughts are run together, from two different sources, to arrive at an implied conclusion (Reagan relied on Noriega even knowing about his increasing repression) which is a conclusion disputed by numerous sources, discussing Reagan’s attempts to deal with Noriega, although he opposed military intervention. The BBC says MAN became more repressive in 84 (others say 83 or 85 was when Reagan noticed). The Guardian says “Noriega allowed Panama to be used as a conduit for US money and weapons for the Contras as then US president Ronald Reagan sought to undermine the Sandinistas.” Our SYNTH conclusion is stronger (and even The Guardian piece acknowledges the problem with the different agencies).

D. Minor fixable issues
But first, some minor issues that could be easily corrected.
 * 1) Ref order: brought up by a godmother[3][4][2] ... putting refs in order is more professional (although in this case, this kind of work should probably wait until the article is re-written to incorporate broader and more scholarly sources, and hopefully cut down the “intervention” content in favor of “biographical” content).
 * 2) Further reading: what are the criteria for inclusion? Both Rempel and Harris received dreadful reviews. And yet, scores of better sources are left off.
 * 3) It is not Hector Gallegos, it is Jesús Héctor Gallego Herrera.  A comprehensive study of the topic would have revealed this error.
 * 4) Please use Template:Interlanguage link to help our readers find further information when an English-language article does not (yet) exist for a notable article, and to help build the encyclopedia.  Knowing all the players will also help in locating Spanish-language sources.  As an example, rather than Boris Martínez, using Boris Martínez will not only direct the interested reader to further information about this person, it will automatically convert to an en.wiki link once an English-language article is written.
 * 5) Wikilink talisman
 * 6) Panamanian laws often repeat by year ... it should be spelled out as Law 20 of 1983 ... which allows the reader to further investigate.
 * 7) Please install Template:Backwards copy on talk for the copyvio at http://josetaboadaberenguer.blogspot.com/2011/01/a-bit-of-history-from-panama.html so it won't flag on copyvio check.  Since the backwards copy hasn’t been installed, one can wonder if a copyvio check was done at either the GA level or the MILHIST A-class review.
 * 8) Can we not do better at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manuel_Noriega ? Featured articles are expected to be well illustrated; has an exhaustive search been done for other images, for example, from other countries or the US government files?  A deeper dive may help the article meet the usual FA standards.
 * 9) Please use the citation template parameter "trans-title=" on foreign language sources to provide a translated title to aid the reader.
 * 10) See MOS:SURVIVEDBY (and it is possible that his wife and daughters are notable because of the fortune they came away with-- has this been investigated for WP:RED and using their full names?)
 * 11) Please check MOS:LQ throughout.
 * 12) In External links, it is unclear to me why "EL My Pen Pal, the story of Sarah York, a girl from a small Michigan town who was a pen pal with Noriega, beginning c. 1988" is included.  She has her own article, and the link can go there.  The “official archives of MAN” return a 404 error.
 * 13) Throughout, further research is impeded by the absence of wikilinks, interlanguage links, or spelling out acronyms ... for example ... COLINA is Coalición para la Liberación Nacional, National Liberation Coalition; ADOC is Alianza Democrática de Oposición Cívica,  Democratic Alliance of Civic Opposition, see 1989 Panamanian general election

E. Prose queries

 * 1) He had longstanding ties to United States intelligence agencies before he was removed from power by the U.S. invasion of Panama. This is not the best choice of words, because technically, does an invasion remove?  Split the sentence, reverse it ? The U.S. invaded Panama and removed him from power?  Suggestions only, but we can do better.
 * 2) two sentences ... variously recorded, varying dates, variously described ... redundancy
 * 3) His new superior officer Boris Martínez was ... commas ... personal preference?, but I would add commas.
 * 4) Dinges writes that in at the time of the 1984 election,  ... in at
 * 5) large sums, large profits same para ... vary the wording
 * 6) Upon his return to Panama, however, he was forced to resign  ... please review use of however, see  overuse of however.
 * 7) An American couple who witnessed the incident were also arrested and harassed by the PDF. Couple is singular.
 * 8) The start of the trial was delayed until September 1991 due to complex legal maneuvering over whether Noriega could be tried after his detention as a prisoner of war, the admissibility of evidence and witnesses, and how to pay for Noriega's legal defense. Redundancies ... and "maneuvering” seems dismissive of the normal legal process ...  The trial was delayed until September 1991 over whether Noriega could be tried after his detention as a prisoner of war, the admissibility of evidence and witnesses, and how to pay for Noriega's legal defense.
 * 9) which left him in a critical condition in the intensive care unit ... "a critical condition"? I suspect that medical state terminology is similar in Panama?
 * 10) Noriega took great care to shape perceptions of him. This is just awkward.  Not sure how to fix it, but fixin' is needed.
 * 11) "El Man" ... this is just another odd thing, like the failure to include all of his nicknames ... it is "el MAN", which stands for his initials (Manuel Antonio Noriega), and we never even mention that (sources do).  "Pineapple face" is really cara de piña ... in a Spanish-language topic, we should use and translate the actual terms where possible.

F. Other instances where paraphrasing could be improved
I might not say these rise to the level of too-close-paraphrasing, but we can do better if aspiring to FA status:
 * Text from NYT: Lew Allen Jr., who at the time was head of the National Security Agency, which is in charge of electronic surveillance, urged Mr. Bush in a 1976 meeting to support prosecution of the soldiers, a move that would have publicly exposed Mr. Noriega's role in the case.
 * Text from Atlantic: Some intelligence officials wanted Bush to press for prosecution of the soldiers, which would have uncovered Noriega’s role, but he declined.
 *  Text in article: Although some intelligence officials wanted Bush to prosecute the soldiers involved, he declined to do so, because that would have exposed Noriega's role in the matter.
 * This is a minor rearranging of words, that could probably be improved upon. More importantly, it preferences the charged Atlantic piece over the more neutral NYT-- in that, it is not "some", it is one, and what is left out confers POV-- that is, "Mr. Bush declined, saying that as C.I.A. Director he had no authority to challenge the Army's decision against prosecution."
 * Text from BBC: By mid-December that year, ties with the US had deteriorated so far that President George H W Bush launched an invasion, ostensibly because a US marine had been killed in Panama City, although the operation had been months in the planning.
 *  Text from article: The U.S. launched its invasion of Panama on December 20, 1989. Although the killing of the marine was the ostensible reason for the invasion, the operation had been planned for months before his death.
 * Gilboa: The entire paragraph that begins with "Díaz Herrera considered using the uproar around Spadafora to seize power during a brief period that Noriega was traveling outside the country," too closely mimics the structure and wording of Gilboa.

G. Sourcing and sources omitted

 * 1) Millett 1993: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-interamerican-studies-and-world-affairs/article/looking-beyond-the-invasion-a-review-of-recent-books-on-panama/5FA15CF5133ED6546A5E75AB435B209E Millett classifies Scranton as the "most scholarly" and has Dinges, Kempe and Buckley in the category of "journalistic treatments" that "shed more light on the problems of policymaking in Washington than they did on the realities of Panama"
 * 2) Margaret Scranton is a scholarly publisher on Panama, she has dozens of journal articles about Panama and the Invasion which are necessary for context and understanding, yet she is cited three times.
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-interamerican-studies-and-world-affairs/article/margaret-e-scranton-the-noriega-years-uspanama-relations-19811990-boulder-co-lynne-rienner-publishers-1991-bibliography-index-246-pp/D7070C5EB3F822607014398BBB8803CF Scranton review.
 * 1) Millett describes the work of another scholar, Ropp, as "groundbreaking", yet Ropp is never cited in the article, for example:   Ropp has a lengthy history of papers on Panama, and exclusion of sources like this, and others, make it appear that it was easier to just read one (Dinges) book, and use that.
 * 2) Millett https://www.jstor.org/stable/166035?seq=1 not tapped
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/2503619 Ropp, not consulted at all, murder of Spadafora initiated turbulent period that led to US ousting of Noriega ... "The nature of this particular crisis demanded a better understanding of domestic politics in order to make sense of external developments" (this article's failing because of reliance on Dinges). Criticial assessment of some of the recent works ... indicates that Panama at the Crossroads, Zimbalist and Weeks, should be consulted. Counterpoint to the non-scholarly statements made by Dignes and Atlantic in Legacy.  Ropp says Zimbalist fails to link well to Noriega years, but this offers contrast to Dignes.  States that Scranton’s work is the most scholarly, that "stands alone". She analyzes Reagan administration.  Her analysis of "mixed signals" vs. "complicit" needs to be accounted for, as well as the distinction between US, State Dept, DOD, DEA and CIA.
 * 1) Page 175 of Millett mentions Watson and Gonzalez, not used.  Then reviews six other books that should be consulted. Eva Loser looks helpful.
 * 2) The Decline Of Military Regimes: The Civilian Influence, Constantine P Danopoulos, ‎Robin A Remington, ‎James Brown – 2019, not used.
 * 3) Metz, all of these sources, untapped: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb049128/full/html No Metz anywhere.  Of note is Metz own analysis, and I wonder why many of the sources Metz covers are not included.  Hedges (The Power of Noriega) seems worthwhile.  Allman is not used, while The Atlantic is.  Reminds us that Dignes is not scholarly, rather “a popular account”.  Ditto for Kempe. Mentions Millett and Ropp repeatedly. Miller specifically explains the early policy shift and why.  Singles out Report on Panama, as “distinguished due to the caliber … “.  Kempton would seem to provide more of a biographical sketch of MAN.  Sanchez Borbon would also seem to give more of a Panamanian perspective on MAN’s control.
 * 4) Robinson, Intervention or neglect, see https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3532&context=nwc-review "avoids the errors of recent trendy journalists who blame the United States for Noriega". Not used.
 * 5) Autobiography, The Memoirs of Manuel Noriega, NYT review, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/11/reviews/970511.11berket.html It is just odd to have an autobiography that is not even mentioned.  If for nothing else, the claim Noriega makes of being "first in his class" somewhere needs to be sorted.
 * 6) Discussion of political, social, economic crisis caused by Noriega: https://elpais.com/internacional/2017/05/30/actualidad/1496121363_001937.html
 * 7) Tension in 85, half-brother, other character descriptions … https://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-noriega-obituary/panamas-noriega-cia-spy-turned-drug-running-dictator-idUSKBN18Q0NW ... this is an example of not only the "half-brother" issue, but also that tensions existed in 85, and the failure of this bio to create a sketch of the character Noriega and the forces that shaped him.  There is much to be mined that is similar.
 * 8) Unused, Manuel Noriega, Former Panamanian Dictator, Dies at 83; General surrendered to U.S. troops in 1990. de Córdoba, José. Wall Street Journal (Online); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]30 May 2017
 * 9) Hijab https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436599208420269?journalCode=ctwq20 lambasts both Dignes and Kempe ... somewhere, I encountered and then lost the link of a review that stated that one of the main criticisms of Dignes is the over-reliance on quotes, which were deemed unrealistic, saying no matter how good your notes are, no one remembers conversations in that detail, implying that Dignes had made them up.  I cannot relocate that source, but mention it in case anyone comes across it in searches.
 * 10) This raises a most odd point about Galvan, which is the third-highest source used after Dinges and Kempe. I can't find any indication that any review of consequence considered Galvan worth reviewing ( ??? ), so I wonder why it is used?

H. Other general sources that could be useful in a more careful blend of sources to counterbalance Dignes POV
It is odd that certain press sources are used while others are ignored ... particularly Spanish language ... a better balance might help. Broadly, I am concerned that anything stated by Dignes in a non-scholarly work is given priority over a multitude of other sources … the article is just re-telling the Dinges POV.
 * 1) https://www.smh.com.au/world/from-dictator-and-us-agent-to-jailbird-manuel-noriega-of-panama-dies-at-83-20170530-gwgegz.html more of his character, which is scarecely explored in his bio
 * 2) https://www.prensa.com/tema/manuel-antonio-noriega/ (Panamanian)
 * 3) https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article153299054.html Not used at all while other journalistic accounts are.  Legacy:  Nobody feared him anymore,” said R.M. Koster, co-author of “In The Time Of The Tyrants,” an astringent history of military rule in Panama that focused heavily on Noriega. “Nobody even knew who he was, hardly.”  Most Panamanians weren't born then ... this is also mentioned elsewhere. Description: “intelligent, aggressive, ambitious and ultranationalistic. ... He is a man of action and not afraid to make decisions.”  after Torrijos deposed Panama’s civilian government in a coup, he put Noriega in charge of not only military intelligence but political dirty tricks against labor unions, student groups and political reformers. The links Noriega formed with intelligence agencies around the world helped him consolidate power when Torrijos died in a plane crash in 1981.  Explains what changed under Reagan ... For the first several years of his backstage rule, Noriega kept his ambitions inside the ordinary parameters of Latin American military governments, enriching himself and his fellow officers through moderate levels of extortion and bribery while aggressively thwarting any attempt to return Panama to civilian rule. He made no move to compromise the Panama Canal or to disrupt the country’s economy. But in a fatal overreach, Noriega in late 1985 forced out Panama’s elected president, Nicolas Ardito Barletta, for trying to enact some tepid anti-corruption measures. Barletta was a friend and former student of George Shultz, then U.S. secretary of state, and suddenly critics of Noriega’s bullyboy rule found a more attentive audience within the Reagan administration. The timing could not have been worse for Noriega.  Much Much More to be mined there !
 * 4) https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-39203174 Cumplía la sentencia de 60 años cuando, … y abandonado a muy temprana edad por su madre, Noriega optó por la carrera militar porque su familia adoptiva no podía costear los estudios de medicina a los que aspiraba. … Con la Guerra Fría en su apogeo, esto convirtió a Noriega en un aliado todavía más valioso para unos Estados Unidos preocupados por la influencia de Cuba en Centroamérica, el triunfo de la revolución sandinista de Nicaragua y los avances de las guerrillas del FMLN en El Salvador. Las revelaciones provocaron multitudinarias manifestaciones de protesta en Panamá, pero estas fueron duramente reprimidas por Noriega, quien además decretó el estado de emergencia y suspendió las garantías constitucionales. Recibió una pena de más de 60 años por asesinatos y desapariciones durante su régimen, … No obstante, en 2015, el ex gobernante militar, apareció en televisión desde la cárcel para pedirle perdón a Panamá por sus "acciones" durante dos décadas de regímenes militares.
 * "Le pido perdón a toda persona que se sienta ofendida, afectada, perjudicada o humillada por mis acciones", expresó presentándose como "el último general de la era militar". It is odd that Legacy includes no mention that he asked forgiveness from Panamanians, unlike certain other dictators, so seems worthy of mention.
 * 1) https://www.prensa.com/judiciales/Murio-dictador-Manuel-Antonio-Noriega_0_4768773076.html Tras ser extraditado de Francia a Panamá, en diciembre del año 2011, Noriega estuvo detenido en el penal El Renacer, donde cumplió las sentencias por los homicidios de Hugo Spadafora y Moisés Giroldi, y por la ejecución de una docena de oficiales que organizó un golpe fallido en 1989. Este sangriento episodio es conocido como la Masacre de Albrook.
 * 2) https://www.prensa.com/judiciales/ascenso-caida-dictador_0_4768773077.html Orphaned at five (stated in several sources), legacy, “dia de la lealtad”, birthplace (which later became one of his nicknames, referenced in other sources), El Terraplen de San Felipe, barrio en panama city … 16 DE DICIEMBRE DE 1989: En el aniversario del “día de la lealtad”, Noriega es proclamado jefe de Estado por la Asamblea Nacional de Corregimientos; el nuevo jefe declara la guerra a Estados Unidos. (This is completely omitted, in fact, somewhat misrepresented-- several sources indicate that he was behind the "declaration of war" on the United States ... )
 * 3) https://www.prensa.com/judiciales/Noriega-acumulaba-condenadas-homicidio-asociacion_0_4768773124.html says 60 years in Panama, other sources say 67, this one says 20 years for each charge x 3.  Noriega murió sin haber sido juzgado por la muerte de Heliodoro Portugal, en 1971, y las desapariciones de Luis Antonio Quirós y Everett Clayton Kimble Guerra, en 1968 en Chiriquí.  Completely odd that we don't mention all the crimes he was charged with in his own country-- this is his bio, and what he did to and in his country is given short coverage in an article that focuses on Dinges's platform of US intervention.  What about Kimble Guerra, Quiros, and Giroldi who is never even named in the article ?
 * 4) https://books.google.com/books?id=KZ5QnZ99u24C&q=Noriega#v=snippet&q=Noriega&f=false Not consulted, much there including Luis Carlos Noriega Hurtado “half-brother”
 * 5) https://books.google.com/books?id=gaIx9QKo7pwC&q=Noriega#v=snippet&q=Noriega&f=false anything useful?
 * 6) https://history.army.mil/html/books/just_cause/CMH_55-1-1_Just_%20Cause_opt.pdf lots, eg half-brother didn’t know he had, etc. since this is taken from Kempe, why do we have Luis Carlos as brother ? Brother’s full name here in legal case: https://www.panamaamerica.com.pa/nacion/ex-general-noriega-podra-recuperar-casas-296060
 * 7) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/06/18/panamanian-leaders-complexities-puzzle-friends-foes-alike/24f886ad-efee-47ca-9965-a99d608c58d5/ character description ... birthdate controversy ... Noriega reportedly lied about his age to obtain a scholarship to attend El Chorrillo Military Academy in Lima, Peru ... But he has never been able to match Torrijos' popularity and charisma, which has been a source of great frustration for him, analysts say.

I. Not covered at all, or factual errors

 * 1) El MAN (initials) and other nicknames,
 * 2) that he was tried in Panama for deforestation,
 * 3) Everett Clayton Kimble Guerra,
 * 4) El Mundo says he was sentenced to 67 years for crimes in Panama, other sources say 60, none say 20 as this article says,
 * 5) that he wanted to be a psychiatrist,
 * 6) that his nickname was cara de piña, not Pineapple face-- it translates to pineapple face.
 * 7) Giroldi, for which he was sentenced in Panama, is never even mentioned ... as if Panama itself doesn't even matter. Seriously, MAN was convicted to either 60 or 67 years in Panama for crimes he committed against Panamanians … these things should be covered in his bio, and let the US invasion article do that job … this is supposed to be his bio.

J. Additional reviews found
I have found some of the missing pieces (reviews I had earlier lost). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * David Brock, "In both books the leitmotif is the allegedly instrumental role that Noriega’s relationship with the U.S. government played in his own advance. But the evidence the two authors muster does not add up to anything close to a cause-and-effect case. " "When viewed against today’s attempt to discredit the Reagan-Bush administrations for their dealings with Noriega, Kempe’s chapter on the doings of Carter’s political appointees—a sordid history of which, for his part, Dinges seems largely unaware—is most instructive." "If Dinges and Kempe fail to substantiate the story about Noriega they have set out to tell, they altogether miss a more serious and provocative story—the one about his associations with Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Colombia’s Medellin drug cartel, and Communist guerrillas in Colombia and El Salvador."
 * "At bottom, both these books reveal more about the modern media culture from which they spring than they do about Manuel Noriega or U.S. foreign policy."
 * "Dinges provides a wealth of dialogue that could not have been recounted with such specificity no matter how long his post-hoc interviews and how knowledgeable his sources." (This is not the original source I found and lost which mentioned this; I still haven't relocated that source, but it referenced other critics saying the same.)
 * From Miami Herald, found while searching at library: Mar 25, 1990 Miami Herald book review of Dinges and Kempe mentions both appear to have been rushed to publish, cites inaccuracies in Kempe, regrets that publication was not delayed so a "thorough treatise could have been produced", and says that both "write from a U.S. perspective, giving little attention to one of the most effective and persistent of the opposition groups, the Civic Crusade... [that] grew to include every facet of Panamanian society in a quest to throw out Noriega and bring democracy to their country".

Individual sections
Turning to section by section (Vanamonde93, at this point, I lost track of which source went with which concern, my apologies if any of this is gibberish, as I was doing too much of this from the car on a hotspot):


 * Early life and family
 * half-brother Luis Carlos N Hurtado, did not know he had siblings, not a brother
 * parents not married, no reason to weasle that, Colombian origins ... having a child with one's domestic help was not uncommon in that era.
 * Born barrio
 * Reason for changing birthdate, discussed in one source that he lied to get into military school
 * Escuela República de México ... should be linked or specified that it is in Panama, since it reads like it could be in Mexico.
 * bookish student always neatly dressed by his godmother … and yet we have so many other sources that give a better character sketch then how he was dressed
 * unable to secure a place in the University of Panama's medical school, we never mention he wanted to be a psychiatrist, or explore his emotional scars, or explain that he couldn't gain admittance for financial reasons.
 * Scranton, Noriega merged the National Guard, police and immigration forces to create PDF ... this internal issue that gave him so much power need to be better explained and explored.
 * Scranton also said US turned blind eye only during his first two years ... this changed after Spadafora ... as mentioned by many sources.  No mention of White House attempts to clarify mixed messages coming from CIA and DEA. Macias and Justines never mentioned ... as if only US intervention matters ... Reagan rejected military intervention ... Treasury Dept made too many exceptions ... bureaucratic infighting is the premise of Scranton and Gilboa which is overlooked in favor of Dinges POV. NO mention that wife of Navy lieutenant was sexually assaulted.  Noriega never intended to step down because the Colombian cartel would kill him.  Little examination of how clever and crafty he was as in missing sources above.


 * National Guard career
 * In a 1962 incident, according to journalist John Dinges in his 1990 volume Our Man in Panama, Torrijos helped Noriega avoid legal trouble after a prostitute accused Noriega of beating and raping her. Does not require attribution, since multiple sources cover this—attributing it makes it sound controversial or as if it is only one opinion. Add sources other than Dinges.
 * Despite performing poorly in his classes, he (but some source claims that in his bio he stated he was first in his class, needs to be sorted, if for no other reason than the credibility of his bio).
 * Noriega's job required him to penetrate and disrupt the trade unions ... and more, which sources cover ...
 * Officials from the Panamanian military were frequently given courses at the school free of charge. So? why is this here?
 * Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter --NYT and others say all administrations had relationship with him. But Reagan singled out. Carter blocking investigation not mentioned.


 * Head of intelligence
 * Dinges wrote that in the early 1970s the U.S. Justice Department had enough evidence to bring an indictment of Noriega in a U.S. court, but chose not to do so because of the potential diplomatic consequences. POV-- see statement about Bush above and why he declined, this needs to be better balanced with all sources, not just Dinges.
 * Year: Though Torrijos frequently promised the U.S. cooperation in dealing with drug smuggling, Noriega would have headed any effort at enforcement, and the U.S. began to see Noriega as an obstacle to combatting drug smuggling ... no need for Dinges here ... and this is very POV … US stance changed after he murdered Spadafora, and other …


 * Death of Torrijos
 * extensive reliance on Dinges for the entire section, while many other sources cover this
 * Paredes, Paredes handed over his position to Noriega, newly appointed a general, … he promoted himself to General … mentioned by many sources … for example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/27/manuel-noriega-us-friend-foe


 * 1984 election
 * Gilboa: The U.S. accepted Barletta's election, and signalled a willingness to cooperate with him, despite being aware of the flaws in the election process.[66][67] ("signalled a willingness" needs better exploration per Scranton, this is POV).


 * Drug and weapons operations
 * First para, "No formal criminal investigations were begun", other sources say Carter blocked them. Scranton (or Gilboa) specifically states that the Carter administration blocked federal prosecutors from bringing indictments on drug traficcing and arms smuggling.
 * However, beginning in 1984 Noriega appeared to reduce the scale of his operations, Dinges, but Hersh “in response to pressure from Reagan administration” not mentioned. Also, see Miller (from Metz) on when shift occurred.


 * CIA involvement and U.S. support
 * “For many years”, needs to be spelled out and de-POV'd. In June 1985 North met with Noriega in Panama and Noriega agreed to train Contra soldiers in Panama for an invasion of Nicaragua in 1986. Dinges, Bulkley, over-reliance and tone.
 * Noriega has been reported to have played a role ... left off increasingly suspicious
 * Officials in the Reagan administration stated that Noriega's drug-related activities had been overlooked because he was an ally of the U.S. in the conflicts in Central America attribute, unnamed sources and officials in the Reagan administration needs to be balanced by Scranton, scholarly.
 * extensive use of primary source, minority report? Secondary sources should be used to justify explain primary source mention, can Use  But besides that, was there no minority report?  Or was this a majority-control attack on Reagan?

This was a turning point in relationships with USA, that is downplayed (as are Noriega's trials in Panama for this and other)
 * Murder of Spadafora and aftermath
 * According to writers R. M. Koster and Guillermo Sánchez, on an occasion when Spadafora was traveling by bus from Costa Rica to Panama, witnesses saw him being detained by the PDF after crossing the border. Why does this need attribution?  It is according to many sources.  Study them, use them.
 * and according to Koster and Sánchez, the U.S. had intelligence implicating Noriega. Ditto.
 * Barletta was highly regarded in the Reagan administration, this needs explanation (Schultz).
 * However, though the U.S. considered not recognizing Delvalle as president, the state department decided against it, as it would have amounted to breaking relations with Noriega. Needs dePOVing ... per Scranton and others.
 * 60 year sentence (or 67, depending on sources), Spadafora, never mentioned, nor Giroldi, tried for these crimes in Panama, and convicted.


 * 1989 election
 * particularly after the U.S. began to suspect that Noriega was lending his support to other intelligence services. much later ... Spadafora had also informed ...
 * Bob Woodward published a story about Noriega in The Washington Post soon afterward ... but that is sourced to Dinges, who is a non-neutral writer, where is Woodward's story?
 * Multiple U.S. agencies continued to investigate Noriega despite opposition from the Reagan administration. Dinges again. Generalizes, see Scranton.  And the article doesn't do a good job of sorting the issues between State Dept, DOD, CIA and DEA ... although too much detail here, a lot could be cut to make room for a bio rather than a "US involvement" article.


 * U.S. invasion of Panama
 * Almost all sourced to Kempe, one of the lesser scholarly sources, but no Scranton. And none of the multitude of other sources. This article is “US intervention according to Dignes”.
 * In March 1988, the U.S. government entered into negotiations with Noriega seeking his resignation. … Gilboa says repeated efforts began in Aug 87.
 * On December 15, 1989, the PRD-dominated legislature spoke of "a state of war" … other sources have this coming directly from Noriega.

Multiple U.S. agencies continued to investigate Noriega despite opposition from the Reagan administration. …. Dignes, see Gilboa.
 * Soon afterward an army colonel and a few soldiers made an attempt to overthrow Noriega; their poorly planned effort was crushed within a day. followed by two sentences about a U.S. schoolgirl ... no mention of Giroldi, seriously, who was murdered, yet we mention a US schoolgirl?  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-03-17-mn-2005-story.html  failed to pay public sector workers ... better exploration of domestic issues is needed ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/03/17/coup-attempt-is-quashed-by-noriega/1c14402a-67bf-4772-acc9-d9a08458a764/ had been considered a staunch Noriega loyalist
 * More detail than needed in this section, can trim here to make room for more appropriate biographical info about MAN.
 * A large number of civilians were killed in the invasion: the precise figure is a matter of debate. The U.S. government reported between 202 and 250 civilian deaths; Americas Watch estimated 300 civilian deaths; the United Nations estimated 500 civilian deaths and former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark estimated that 3,000 civilians were killed.[124][128]
 * So, we include the out-of-scale opinion of a US opposition party (Ramsey Clark), but what about Panamanian estimates ?? Ramsey Clark way out of line there … POV.
 * https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-36851567
 * All sources I can find indicate disputes and interviews involving about 200 cases, and nothing that approaches anything like Ramsey Clark number ... UNDUE.
 * https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/191215/191219-victimas-invasion-numero-eternamente-incierto
 * Removed the 3,000 claim (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This provides an example of why I have been trying to find a Panamanian editor. Much more significant than an outlandish claim from Ramsey Clark is that there is a Commission and investigation in Panama, which seems to be stalled. I can't locate good information on where that stands; a Panamanian would know. It seems to be politically stalled, but at even at that, the numbers they are discussing are nowhere near the Ramsey Clark number, best I can tell. Better information on this from Panama would be more helpful than the Ramsey Clark number. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Prosecution and imprisonment
 * where he was arraigned on the ten charges which the Miami grand jury had returned two years earlier. Ten charges are never specified. Nor the eight ... would be helpful to spell out.
 * The trial ended in April 1992, when Noriega was convicted on eight of the ten charges of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering. What was he not convicted of? Explain the eight, ten, two.
 * Noriega insisted that he had in fact been paid close to $10,000,000, and that he should be allowed to testify about the work he had done for the U.S. government. See Noriega autobiography and “first in class”  … does his autobiography claim that and can it be verified otherwise? Or does he just generally lie?  Future scholarship will reveal?  Hard to get an FA out of so much missing info; better to relegate this sort of thing to sub-articles, and build a bio here.  https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a485608.pdf much more to be mined in that article by checking the sources it cites
 * This section is almost all Albert; Buidhe added 16 sources at United States v. Noriega, none useful? Better relegated to sub-article to focus on bio?
 * Can be trimmed: Before receiving his permanent prison assignment, Noriega was placed in the Federal Detention Center, Miami.[150] Noriega was incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution, Miami, in an unincorporated area of Dade County, Florida, and had the Federal Bureau of Prisons ID number 38699-079.[151] Excess not needed here, can be in sub-article, make this more of his bio.
 * Religious conversion … he wrote an autobiography, what does he say? We have sources saying he was Buddhist as well.
 * Throw away sentences that could be tightened … writing seems to lose focus in Prosecution in France … Later that month Noriega's attorney stated that he would travel to France and try to arrange a deal with the French government ... why needed here ? Article seems to begin falling apart towards the bottom.


 * Return, illness and death
 * Prosecution in US, Prosecution in France, but relatively little content about his crimes in Panama ! he could face trial for human rights violations in Panama … yes ??  Lots of content about the French viewpoint, nothing Panamanian. …  to serve time for crimes committed during his rule
 * and sentenced to 20 years in prison … 60 to 67 in every source I viewed, and crimes should be spelled out ...
 * which was later revealed to have been benign. … ??? to prepare for surgery that would remove the tumor … at that point, the tumor was growing according to one source ?? https://www.kwqc.com/content/news/Former-Panamanian-dictator-Manuel-Noriega-dies-at-83-425291554.html

There are multiple Margarat R. Scranton follow-up journal-published scholarly articles that are not used. Also:
 * Image and legacy
 * Public Opinion and the Future of U.S.-Panama Relations Author(s): Orlando J. Perez Source: Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. v+1-33 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/166157
 * A 2010 article in The Guardian referred to him as the best known dictator of his time, and as "Panama's answer" to Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi".[187] Simon Tisdall is an anti-Bush opinion commentator for the Guardian … he is used twice. Over-emphasized in legacy.  If we are including opinion pieces, then should be using also the one by Mario Vargas Llosa- a Hispanic. https://www.prensa.com/impresa/mosaico_dominical/Cara-pina_0_4771772802.html  Pero al mandar a torturar y decapitar en 1985 al doctor Hugo Spadafora, célebre luchador por los derechos humanos, asesinato que provocó una conmoción en el mundo entero, comenzó a cambiar su suerte.
 * Dinges writes that though Noriega's regime saw a number of murders and crimes, they were similar in scale to those that occurred at the same time under the authoritarian governments of Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, and El Salvador; these governments never saw the level of condemnation from the U.S. that Noriega's did. UNDUE emphasis on Dinges POV again.
 * Almost an entire paragraph from the Atlantic? But narry a Panamanian voice ?  Again, less legacy than anti-US POV.  Atlantic one author opinion gets undue attention in Legacy, while Panamanian and hispanic voices are overlooked.
 * POV … The author stated that although Panama was a freer democracy after Noriega's removal,
 * Similarly, authors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St-Clair stated that despite Noriega's overthrow, Panama's importance in the illegal drug trade continued to grow.  In 1998 ??? Legacy ???
 * He was perceived as a trusted collaborator in the war against drugs … by whom according to whom? changed over time, and few trusted, if they did, name them.
 * Noriega used the moniker "El Man" to refer to himself, but he was also known by the nickname "Pineapple Face", (discussed above, MAN not explained, pineapple face not translated, and other nicknames should be included ...
 * attitude of machismo that Noriega adopted has been described as a reaction :https://www.elmundo.es/america/2010/04/27/noticias/1272329434.html Y regresa a un Panamá muy diferente al país arruinado por los efectos de la crisis que protagonizó, a uno lleno de rascacielos en la bahía de la capital, moderno y pujante. Panamá vive ahora un auge económico impresionante, con un crecimiento cercano al 10% y pleno empleo, mayor coste de la vida, grado de inversión, un formidable centro financiero internacional y el Canal interoceánico que ya es panameño y está siendo ampliado. Cuando se lo llevaron esposado y vestido con un mono de mecánico de aviones dejó tras de sí un país hundido económicamente, con casi 15% de pérdida del Producto Interior Bruto, sin crédito internacional, ocupado militarmente y desmanteladas las Fuerzas de Defensa, reemplazadas por una policía civil.
 * https://www.kwqc.com/content/news/Former-Panamanian-dictator-Manuel-Noriega-dies-at-83-425291554.html Following Noriega’s ouster Panama underwent huge changes, taking over the Panama Canal from U.S. control in 1999, vastly expanding the waterway and enjoying a boom in tourism and real estate. Today the Central American nation has little in common with the bombed-out neighborhoods where Noriega hid during the 1989 invasion, Noriega also helped the U.S. seize drugs at sea and track money laundering in Panama’s banks, and reported on guerrilla and terrorist activities. During his years at a minimum-security federal prison outside Miami, Noriega got special prisoner of war treatment, allowed to wear his Panamanian military uniform and insignia when in court.
 * Despite amassing great wealth, Noriega had worked hard to cultivate an image of a man of the people. He lived in a modest, two-story home in an upper-middle-class neighborhood in Panama City that stood in stark contrast with the opulent mansions customary among Latin American dictators. While some resentment lingers over the U.S. invasion, Noriega has so few supporters in modern-day Panama that attempts to auction off his old home attracted no bidders and the government decided to demolish the decaying building. Noriega broke a long silence in June 2015 when he made a statement from prison on Panamanian television to ask forgiveness of those harmed by his regime. “I feel like as Christians we all have to forgive,” he said, reading from a handwritten statement. “The Panamanian people have already overcome this period of dictatorship.”


 * In popular culture
 * Too much off-topic that can be trimmed to make way for more Panamanian content
 * Trimmed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is much better. What tends to happen in Popular culture sections is that other editors try to cram promotional info into the article that has higher pageveviews than the popular culture article (eg, Noriega versus the film or video game), when much of that kind of information belongs over there, not in here. When there is still lots of biographical content to be covered here, we don't need to be taking up space with puffery about films and video games that can be covered in their own articles. That's why we have wikilinks and summary style.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Should mention never elected and promoted himself to general? That he promoted himself to General is never mentioned in article ?? Remember, Latin America now views him in comparison to Chavez, also a long-standing head of state also referred to as a dictator, but who was initially elected, and Maduro, who also has people thrown off of buildings vs. MAN throwing them out of helicopters or stuffing them into US mail pouches … so context has changed with time.
 * Mestizo in the lead? Almost all people in Latin America are "mestizo"; his roots were Colombian, never mentioned in the article.  Is it always necessary to characterize Latin Americans as “Mestizo”?
 * “Noriega was one of the Central Intelligence Agency's most valued intelligence sources, as well as one of the primary conduits for illicit weapons, military equipment, and cash destined for U.S.-backed forces throughout Latin America. “ Where does “throughout Latin America” come from?
 * “The U.S. also regarded Noriega as an ally in its War on Drugs,” An example of the broad brush used throughout the article. “The US” does not account for different administrations nor differences between State Department, CIA, DOD and DEA. Nuance needed, lead is POV.
 * ally in its War on Drugs, despite Noriega himself having amassed a personal fortune through drug trafficking operations. POV synth.
 * There's an obvious contradiction in article that wants to compare Noriega to Qaddafi in the lead, while then claiming "similar" figures continue in power in Central America. Yikes.  Of course, almost all of that analysis is rendered moot by comparison to contemporary dictators.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary
From examining the article's talk page, it appears that some past editors had a good understanding of some of the missing nuance, but have gone silent. Where are who might be able to help sort some of this? Also, there seem to be no active Panamanians on Wikipedia, or even at es.Wikipedia that I can find, but there are others who can help with Spanish-language sources if needed. My suggestion is urgently re-evaluate the GA status, and once the article is re-worked, to ask for a new A-class review from MILHIST. It is never surprising for a GA "review" to be a cursory, one-person opinion that overlooks considerable issues, but that the existing A-class MILHIST review was little more than prose nitpicks is quite surprising, considering the quality its A-class was once known for. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If Spanish-language help is needed, perhaps will pitch in.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A comment above caught my eye. Panama is a bit more diverse than some other countries in the region. 65% of Panamanians are mestizo. A full 1/3 are not. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it sounds like you're saying that, in this case, it is significant for a "mestizo" to be in position to run the country? Because there is a higher non-Mestizo population, and they have more power? If so, we probably have a source saying something like that somewhere ... which would give some context for why we are identifying him thusly, rather than saying he had Colombian heritage (his mother). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you get that from what I said. The comment above was "Almost all people in Latin America are "mestizo"" That may be true in other places, but Panama is more diverse than that. I didn't say anything about who have power or anything like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for an exhaustive review. I will do my best to address the concerns you raise, but as I'm sure you can understand, it will take me a while; I do not have the time on hand I did when I first wrote this. Also, I'm afraid I am struggling to understand a lot of your later comments; I appreciate the difficulty of writing on the road, god knows; but it means I may have to ask for a lot of clarification, and I'm saying this at the outset because I do not wish to come across as argumentative. A more general point though; I've been through a little more than sixty GA, A-class, and FA reviews (or a hundred, depending on whether you count individual reviews) of my writing at this point; and the reviews of this article were among the more thorough. This isn't to defend this article, but to point out that if these reviews had an overabundance of prose nitpicks and insufficient scrutiny of the material, where do the rest of our GAs and FAs stand? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the par of the course for GA and FA. The number of reviewers who are able and willing to really dive into the sources and evaluate the content rather than tweak the surface level presentation, is, sorry to say, very low. SG is a gem (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks Buidhe; I hope MILHIST doesn’t decide to strip me of the 9 out of 55 after this and Beulah Ream Allen in the same week!! Vanamonde, I will put a longer (off-topic) response on talk here about the GA/FA issues once I am fully awake, caffeinated and not iPad typing, and another one about how to proceed considering my sources got disconnected from my commentary as I was iPad editing from the car.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. There are certain sources (e.g. Cockburn and St-Clair) and topics (e.g. Iran-Contra, Oliver North, CIA) that frequently have me on the look-out for half-truths, but I am afraid that my knowledge of Noriega is a bit limited. I do think Rgr09 has quite a bit of knowledge on this, but his plate may be full right now. - Location (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I at one point put a lot of time into reading various books on Panama after some things in the article caught my attention. The article originally accumulated more than its share of conspiracist claptrap in which the CIA was a major drug-running criminal organization. This later expanded into Iran-Contra claims that you have bumped into. A lot of this has been toned down, but there are still problems on this score. I'll talk sources here, since SG rightly focused on these.
 * I think Galvan should be replaced completely. There is nothing original in it, just a rehash of other books, particularly Dinges. I can provide cites for this if needed.
 * I read Scranton's The Noriega Years: US-Panama Relations, 1981-1990 and cited that in the article, specifically on election issues leading up to the invasion. The book is 1991, so she has material that could be added with benefit to the article. She is certainly more scholarly (NPOV) than the other writers.
 * Koster/Sánchez has various problems and is heavily POV, better not to use it, since there are plenty of books that provide the needed information without the POV.
 * Dinges and Kempe cannot be dispensed with, though the emphasis on them can be reduced. I thought Kempe was the better of the two, but they are both essentially journalistic accounts. Both are based on extensive interviews with people in Panama who knew Noriega before his rise, and both writers managed to see portions of U.S. intelligence files on Noriega (some of this was later released under FOIA; unfortunately no one seems to have used it since D and K, so we have no way of citing it in the article). Because D and K's books have influenced people's views on Noriega strongly, de-emphasizing them in the article will be difficult. That is my sad experience with WP (examples of this problem available on request).
 * Dinges is particularly reliant on the Kerry Committee's investigation, and this is where a lot of his POV comes from. He also mentions Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey in his acknowledgements, see the Christic Institute article for what they brought to the table. Dinges also has two editions, a 1990 ed. and a revised 1991 ed. They are different, but I have not had a chance to compare them in detail, except that the rev. ed. was written while the Miami trial was still underway, and is thus missing important information. Since D. is the main source for the article, at minimum a check of info in the rev. ed. should be done.
 * Both these books (D and K) are heavily dated: they do not cover N's trial in Miami (see above), or the trial in France, or the later trials in Panama. This is especially problematic for the article. In addition, although both books describe Noriega as a devious, clever manipulator, they are so relentlessly U.S. oriented in their presentation that the effect is often to make Noriega appear nothing more than another U.S. paid stooge. This fundamental POV is reflected in the article. Noriega is simply not presented as an independent Panamanian state actor in a Panama context. I would mention in this context Noriega's close relations with Castro, and his gun smuggling for the Sandinistas before the overthrow of Somoza.
 * Albert's book on the trial is highly relevant for many of the claims made in D and K. I tried to put some of this in, e.g. the charges against Noriega and the results of the trial (!) but Vanamonde felt this should go somewhere else, i.e. a then non-existent article on the Miami trial. I still disagree, but I do not have the energy or time to do more than kibbitz on the article at this point.
 * One more point regarding newpaper sources. Newspaper stories often feature notable errors that should not be repeated. Seymour Hersh's article on Noriega is an example. His description of the arrangement between Noriega and the Medellin cartel is in error; they were setting up cocaine labs, not heroin labs, and the other details of this deal, as described in the trial, also contradict Hersh's account. The U.S. payments to Noriega are another example. They should be discussed with reference to the trial. The highly inflated numbers cited in the article came from Noriega's defense, and Albert's discussion of these is important to cite if these numbers are going to be mentioned. Rgr09 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One more book that could be considered is Noriega's own memoir, America's prisoner, put together by Peter Eisner from interviews with Noriega. Self-serving yes, but it is a record of what Noriega himself said about his experiences, and that is not without relevance for an article on MAN. Rgr09 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I was already quite concerned about POV in the article, but subsequent posts here and at Talk:Manuel Noriega from editors more familiar with the underlying literature than I am have raised my concern level even higher. I understand 's reluctance to get involved in correcting considerable POV, and that both Location and are quite busy, but it is looking like months may be needed to address the issues here. Meanwhile, the article averages almost 2,000 hits per day, and has been featured on the main page (ITN, OTD) nine times. I am becoming concerned that the article needs a POV tag, so that it isn't chosen again to run on the mainpage while work is underway. What are everyone's thoughts about how long it will take to fix this, and who might be able to help, and whether the article should be tagged? I am also now concerned that Location and Rgr09 should look at Featured article candidates/Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents/archive1, because I see similar problems there. Many of the sources appear to trace back to Dinges, or are unclear about where they are getting their info. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I cannot stop you from tagging anything, but respectfully, I disagree. The issues you have raised with the sources are entirely legitimate, and I will work on fixing them. However, apart from isolated fragments in the CIA relationship section, I don't see where this has made the article ideologically tilted (as opposed to just not representing the source material, as it should). I'm not dismissing your concerns; balancing POVs of different authors (including but not limited to Panamanian vs US authors) is absolutely necessary; but to me a biography that is being actively worked on requires a tag only when the issues amount to portraying its subject substantively more negatively or positively than in the literature. Most of my work here is related to politics; if this is the level at which a POV-tag is required, >90% of our political articles require them. With respect to the other FAC, I'm happy to hear any feedback that anyone has, but that article is decidedly not based on Dinges; he's only cited nine times, most of which have to do with Noriega's brief involvement; and very many of the other sources predate Dinges, and therefore cannot have got their information from him. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in no hurry to tag the article, though again, my concern is that it not run on the mainpage again in this state, and that it is getting 2,000 views per day. I am unsure how you come to the conclusion that "to me a biography that is being actively worked on requires a tag only when the issues amount to portraying its subject substantively more negatively or positively than in the literature." POV goes beyond how the subject is portrayed ... how Noriega is portrayed, how the US portrayed, how other individuals are portrayed, etc.  I hope we can clean some of the most egregious instances sooner rather than later.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will work on it as best I can. I did not say that that was my definition of neutrality, only that that is my threshold for tagging articles. I believe that if they were held to your standard the overwhelming majority of biographies and political articles would require neutrality tags, including ones that we routinely run on the main page. I'm not objecting to being held to that standard, because that is the standard required at FAC, but I dispute the suggestion that this is worse than the average main page article, or the average un-tagged biography getting thousands of daily views. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We agree about the overwhelming majority :) Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing
Feedback gratefully received, and will be worked on. This is too long a page to ask any more reviewers to engage, and the work required too large for there to be any purpose served in their engaging. Location, Rgr09, and I have discussed things on the talk page before, and can continue to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)