Talk:Latin America–United States relations

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin America Unassessed

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

International relations Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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. Signature^brendel 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]

Fixed --200.126.153.25 22:29, 2 August 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]

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]