Jump to content

Talk:Latin America–United States relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2804:5f0c:11ab:4a00:297c:ad68:2e97:390 (talk) at 21:06, 24 May 2023 (→"Military Dictatorship in Brazil" section (under 1960s heading): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Where is Brazil?

Brazil is more than 50% of South America, but it didn´t appear in this article.

NPOV, et al

Something really ought to be done in regards to the unsourced allegations and conspiracy theories present in the latter half of this article. Can we throw up a neutrality and sources flag? Comrade438 08:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may of course put a POV template. But that would require pointing out exactly what parts you disagree with, and which sentences you feel need references. Tazmaniacs 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old

This page should probably be moved to United States-Latin American relations, because that's the format most articles about relations between two specific countries or regions are in.--Carabinieri 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the current name is ambiguous.- Jor70 10:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

I think the first sentence is kind of odd: "The United States has always had a special conception of its relationship with the nations of Latin America." Don't relationships have to be two-way? Or is it all about the US's point of view? Steve Dufour 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the relationship does go two ways: the U.S. exploits and Latin America is made to shut up,lest they receive economic and/or diplomatic castigation. The "special" in that intro. must refer to the way the U.S. regularly fucks Latin American countries. But, it's okay, you keep thinking you're #1 (in fact, you're not even in the top ten) and the rest of the world will go on hating you guys because we are all so jealous, right? Yeah, because we want our children to be fat and dumb. Most High Schoolers in the U.S. can't even find Iraq on a map but you'll train them to fire bombs that can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.244.202 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

The introduction to this article is in desperate need of attention. Surely there is more to say than "The United States has always had a special conception of its relationship with the nations of Latin America." ;-) The intro should sum up all main points feature in an article. Signaturebrendel 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we say: "the United States has always acted with prepotence and arrogance regarding Latin American nations, conveniently ignoring each nation's right to self-determination of government", oh and the opinions about the effect of intervention are written from the US's point of view and completely ignore the very obvious effect: whenever the USA or any other nation gets in another state's affairs, it only messes up its development and halts progress, just look at civil wars in developing countries, the U.S. and the Soviet Union supplied them with weapons and messed up the whole thing. The only "victory" that America has had in wartime for the past half century is the Korean War, and that was more of a tie. --Francopedorro (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag added

This whole article lacks a neutral POV. It is full of one side ideas and concepts. It should be edited propertly to avoid political comments and opinions and to present facts only. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A non-US-centric view is in the linked German wiki entry. Merging facts from there could bring some balance, in particular regarding US-led coups, authoritarian governments supported and assassinations. Google translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUS-lateinamerikanische_Beziehungen&edit-text=&act=url --201.214.97.253 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University Project

Hi my name is Greg Svishchov and I am a student at the University of Toronto. For one of my courses (Latin American History) my final project consists of contributing to existing Wikipedia entries. My research on the topic of the Panama-U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaty has been posted on this page. Please be so kind as to not delete this until after the New Year, once my professor has had a chance to grade my work.

I have pasted the following text on this page under the Bilateral Investemnt Treaty section:

The Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) is essentially an agreement between the governments of two countries focusing on the reciprocal encouragement, treatment and protection of mutual investments. It is achieved because of the desire to promote economic cooperation between them by creating favorable conditions for investment by nationals and companies of one country in the territory of the other country. The BIT recognizes that the encouragement and protection under international agreement of such investment will be beneficial to the motivation of individual business initiative and will increase prosperity in both countries

Please do not delte this. Thank You kindly,

Greg

Link to archived version give on user's talk page. --TeaDrinker 03:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Wars, North-Americans

From the article:

North-Americans advocating imperialism in the pre-World War I era often argued that these conflicts helped central and South Americans by aiding in stability

What, exactly, are "North-Americans"? Geopolitically, North America usually refers to Canada, U.S.A., and Mexico. Geographically, North America also includes Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, most of the Western Carribean, as well as some islands owned by France, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Were Mexicans advocating imperialism? I think this should be changed to either "U.S. citizens advocating imperialism..." or "Canadian and U.S. citizens advocating imperialism..." Perhaps this was a mistranslation from the Spanish word norteamericano, which means U.S. citizen? - Eric (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a student at The College of Wooster currently taking a Latin American and United States history course. I am wondering where you retrieved the information in the section of Banana Wars. All of the information listed, including the prevalence of certain countries involved compared to others, is left uncited. Thanks! Sezshana (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sezshana: You're replying to a comment made in 2008, so I wouldn't expect a quick response. The Banana Wars section is a summary of the sub-article Banana Wars. So if you want an idea of what references are used, look at the books/articles cited in Banana_Wars#References.
That said. Full disclosure here. Your average Wikipedia article is a big mix of random comments added from people who wander by and drop off the cool factoid they learned today. This is actually a good thing, but it means that even if a sentence is cited, there's no guarantee the sentences right next to it were written by someone who read the same source as the person who wrote the original sentence. Even worse, sometimes someone will drop off a correct sentence that is cited, and then someone else will "fix" it, or rewrite the whole paragraph, and leave the reference - even though it actually doesn't really support the rewritten version. Basically, proceed with care, you should check the cited references yourself ideally if you want to write a paper or to improve the article. SnowFire (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversions

User:Vanamonde93 and User:Stumink: For what it's worth, as a third opinion, I think Stumink's edit (since reverted) is fine to me. Been meaning to attempt to clean this page up for awhile, and Stumink is mostly toning down some hyperbolic phrasing, and the paragraphs removed often had citation needed tags, or were way overwritten. Granted, Stumink introduced a few new grammar mistakes, but on the whole it's an improvement.

Here's an example:

Placing their own actions within the US doctrine of "national security" against "internal subversion", really political opposition which shown any sign of participation by students, social movements, unions that were not pro-US and conservative, the authoritarian regimes who had crushed left-wing, progressist and liberal opposition, began a transition to neoliberal economic policies. Chile thus became one of the laboratory of shock therapy, under the supervision of the Chicago boys influenced by Milton Friedman's monetarism.[citation needed]

Not really. The CIA intervened for fear that Pinochet was somehow an agent of Moscow because they refused to believe that there was such thing as independent socialists, not because Milton Friedman asked for a laboratory; that was incidental. Similarly the timing is wrong here - Latin America *would* try "neoliberal" policies later, in the 90s, but it was pretty much just Chile in this period - Argentina & Brazil's governments were US-friendly often, but far from paragons of capitalism, and were more vanilla conservative dictatorships / oligarchies. Basically this was less with the US being capitalist missionaries and more the US attacking anything that they thought might become the second Cuba.

In the same way, the article currently drags on far too long trying to 'prove' the US was behind the 2002 Venezuela coup - which of course is perversely because this probably wasn't true, and hence the need to justify the stance, rather than just blandly state it. SnowFire (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure. I'm not saying all the content he removed needs to be kept; I said that his blanking removed some sourced paragraphs that seemed to be fine, and removed content in some places instead of toning it down. So I asked him to discuss it. If he would only take it a little slower, it would be fine. Removed the unsourced stuff. Change the tone. Discuss sourced stuff you want to tweak. Don't simply blank. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal ownership

Correction: The U.S. never owned the Panama Canal zone. It remained under Panama by the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty between the U.S. and Panama. It effectively was leased to the U.S.

Norm Mikalac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:4302:3810:B5BB:2FC:7019:19F9 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Latin America–United States relations. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Latin America–United States relations. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin America–United States relations. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Weapons 'Installed'?

I quote from the article: '..the Cuban Missile Crisis threatened major war as the Soviet Union installed nuclear weapons in Cuba to defend it from an American invasion. There was no invasion,..'

I don't think it is true that the Soviet Union 'installed nuclear weapons in Cuba', so the article is wrong, I think, and of course it would have to also be wrong about the hypothetical reason why the Soviet Union did this..DanLanglois (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point, would something along the lines of "the Cuban Missile Crisis threatened major war as the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons in Cuba to in response to U.S. ballistic missiles in Turkey. The crisis ended when both sides agreed to withdraw their weapons." - SantiLak (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Latin America–United States relations. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

Hi guys, I think this sentence is a bit confusing. I would like to change it to this edit, (insert EDIT below.) If anyone has disagreements with my edit, I am happy to talk. I may be interpreting the information wrong. Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

Hi all, there is a passive voice issue with a portion of the sentence. I am editing it to make sure the subject is “acting,” but if it is interpreted wrong, please change it to read the correct information in active voice. Shelbyhoward423 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Latin America–United States relations. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Military Dictatorship in Brazil" section (under 1960s heading)

I was reading the section, and it looks like the previous section on the US-Cuban relations bled over the "Military Dictatorship in Brazil" section. The issue is that the Brazil section looks to be around 2 sentences, and I'm not sure whether that should be removed entirely (I'd rather it wouldn't) or just placed correctly. 2804:5F0C:11AB:4A00:297C:AD68:2E97:390 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_America–United_States_relations&oldid=1156831209"