Talk:Martyrs' Day (Panama)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- This article is POV at points, in my opinion. Saying things like "rather conclusively" is a rather silly and heavy-handed way of attacking the United States position on the events in Panama in 1964. The rest of the article is ok.
- Yep, it needs a going over for POV statements like "the most blameless." It's not too bad on the whole, but the emphasis on "martyrdom" and such is rather biased. Night Gyr 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Modified that "the most blameless" statement, I think you're right. And of course needs more polishing, nothings perfect, I hope lots of people can make it better. Thanks for your reading and interest. Radioheadhst 22:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- It makes references to pictures that are not on the page (e.g. see picture at right).
- This article reads a bit like an undergraduate research paper. Many sentences are taken, word for word, from "Panama Canal Zone: Beginning of the End" by Eric Jackson, which is linked at the end of the article. It also needs POV issues addressed. For example, the article contains accounts of the tearing of the Panamanian flag that contradict each other, which on the one hand suggests that how the flag was torn is disputed, but the article still refers to the damage to the flag as the "flag desecration incident," which implies intentional damage to the flag. The article also contains the statement, "The Zonians would have none of it," which is awkward, unprofessional, and POV. Also, the statement that the UK and France "pointed to the hypocrisy of a power whose Zonian citizens were as obnoxious as any other group of colonial settlers" does not indicate whether this is the opinion of the two nations or the opinion of the article's author. 5:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)