Talk:Manuel Noriega

Lots of inaccuracies in this

I spent 4 years in the Canal Zone (74-78) as a CPT and Major and as a company commander I had several dealings with both LTC Noriega and LTC Paredes. Noriega was not only the Guardia G-2/Intel but was the head of the National Police. About half the troops in the Guardia were actually the Police. We did not have a Status of Forces Agreement with Panama and whenever Treaty negotiations were going badly, the Police would police up some Soldiers on trumped up charges and the company commander would have to deal with Noriega directly to get them out of jail -- or at least I had to. At the time the Guardia Staff and the Civilian Government were totally integrated so LTC Paredes was the G-1 which was also like our OPM and he handed out all the Government Jobs so he was probably the most influential of the Guardia General Staff. The G4 controlled all government supplies, purchasing and contracting so was like our GSA controlling a lot of dollars (Panama used US Currency). None of this is very well explained here. Also, how BG Torrijos took power and especially squashed the coops against him is explained at all. Just not a very complete picture of events. The-Expose-inator (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Credit

The author of this article neglected to credit the Bush administration with ordering and conducting the operation. That was actually the question I had when I visited this article today and the only place it can be found is under the article on Bush’s presidency. ~2026-52976 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Debord's analysis

I restored a shortened version of the quote removed by by @Vanamonde93 on account of a concern over its dueness. I believe the inclusion of this material is justified for the following reasons:

1. Debord's analysis draws upon the same facts cited by the vast majority of authors cited on this page. In this regard, his point of view is fundamentally in line with that of others on the page. Debord's view can't fully be considered a minority view, as it is in consensus with other sources about the basic facts of Noriega's career. To the extent that Debord departs from other sources, no other source I am aware of contradicts his analysis. 2. The length of the quote is necessary for the reader to understand Debord's analysis.

@Vanamonde93, if you object to the inclusion of the truncated quote, can you substantiate your objection? How, in your view, could the inclusion of Debord's analysis be further modified to satisfy your concern over its dueness without sacrificing its explanatory thoroughness? What harm does the inclusion of this quote do to the page, and why would making further changes ultimately benefit the page? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:DUE is not simply about representativeness, but about source quality, and length. This article is a summary of what high-quality sources say about its subject. A block quote is not a summary by its very nature. We should summarize what the best sources say here. Even if that were to include Debord - and I see no indication that he has expertise particular to this article - a brief analysis is all that would be due. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, Debord is not a Noriega scholar, if such a thing exists, but I felt compelled to add his quote after reading it because I felt that it was itself an apt summary of the facts in the article and an accurate conclusion based on them. Your interpretation of policy here is well within the bounds of reason, probably even more conventional than mine, but policy doesn't exist for its own sake. It's supposed to serve Wikipedia's improvement. Do you actually think the quote makes the article worse? I can't really see how it would. I don't think the page on the whole is in danger of being too verbose or unbalanced, and so I think the reader can only benefit from an explanation of one more (interesting!) view on the article's subject. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I do believe the quote makes the article worse. There is insufficient detail to substantively explain the idea in Debord's quote that is new to the article, which is the theory he expounded. Conversely, there is far too much repetition of the material already covered. A quoted opinion offers the opportunity to be more pithy than we can be in Wikipedia's voice; the quote is not that either. Hence my request to reframe it in our own, much shorter, words, if not to remove it altogether. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I see your point, and I think I found a way to summarize the quote. I do believe that the core point of his analysis adds explanatory value to the article, and I believe that in my latest edit I have managed to retain only the portion of the quote necessary to explain what he means by it. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)