Talk:Alliance for Progress

Excerpts_of_research_paper_on_Anti-Americanism
Talk:Anti-Americanism, mentioning the Alliance for Progress. RWV 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
An anon continues to delete the one sourced sentence and the unsourced sentence:

"Some contemporary latin american scholars may argue that this was not incidentally, for the north american direct and strong support of most military coups in the region during this period was very much coherent with the initial objectives of the Alliance, given that the democratically elected governments that were overthrown by the dicators had clear leftist leanings (such as President João Goulart in Brazil and Salvador Allende in Chile)."

I removed the unsourced sentence but retained the sourced sentence, including the quote from Agee. The anon's own personal feelings about the author is irrelevent. Thus far, these deletions are the anons only contributions to the article. Travb (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence that remains is poor and inadequately sourced for the weight of the charge (which was essentially restated in the deleted portion). If the claim is that the dictatorships which emerged were due to the AfP then that fact should be referenced specifically, rather than saying it was a general "failure" (it is not clear what the author says about it).  Were these dictatorships around merely proof that the AfP did not succeed in its goals, or was the program to blame for their existence?  To what extent can US officials be held responsible for the domestic events in these countries and under what circumstances?  This line is leading to nowhere and everywhere at the same time, and so is useless.


 * Philip Agee is not a notable authority on US foreign policy. He is a crank who went from the CIA to the arms of the KGB and DGI.  You know this well, so do not pretend that he is relevant or that this is not undue weight from an unreliable source.  129.71.73.248 06:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your contributions thus far to this article have been deleting sections. This takes immense amounts of work and talent.


 * I comprimised on the paragraph which was unsourced, and deleted it. If you continue to remove sourced documents, I will restore it.


 * Here is the quote from Talons of the Eagle, page 155:


 * The most striking failure of the Alliance of Progress occured within the political realm. Instead of promoting and consolidating reformist civiliam rule, the 1960s witnessed a rash of militayr coups throughout the region...By the end of 1968 dictators were holding sway in [several countries]


 * The deleted portion was added after I added this sourced paragraph.


 * Unlike your own unsourced opinion, my "opinion" is sourced.


 * Your opinion of Agee is just that, an opinon. I am well aware of Agee's history and have had edit wars on that page, helping User:TDC support of conservative views like yours.


 * If you want to add some more quotes to this section, or hell, add anything to this article, please be my guest. But removing well sourced information will not be tolerated. Travb (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not care one whit about your battles with others on Agee, but since you mentioned it I will request his opinion, as I consider it quite simple that Agee is given undue weight as an irrelevant crank, quite frankly. As to the merits, it is better that a straight quote is given rather than that the article laze on a poor summation; however, I can't help but doubt the veracity of a quote that so closely approximates what was given and in addition was badly spelled. Apologies if this seems imprudent, but I do not have immediate access to the book itself. 129.71.73.248 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason the sentence "so closely approximates what was given" is because the setence was based on what was in the book. Its not rocket science. Please WP:AGF. My bad typing has nothing to do with the veracity of the book. The book is available on amazon.com "search inside", where I found the reference, you can check the passage there.
 * You critize others works a hell of a lot, but thus far you have contributed nothing to this article. I don't think edit warring and POV pushing count as contributions.
 * I have already accomidated you twice. I rewrote the paragraph verbatium, and removed the other sentences you disagreed with. I appreciate the same consideration please. Travb (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it up, and I will ask for the paragraph to be semi-protected. i.e. no anons can edit. Travb (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I might have to spend a few seconds to make an account! You are the one attempting to make things personal; otherwise why make insinuations about contributions (which is utterly irrelevant and as far as you know completely untrue) and call names like "vandal"?  I'm sorry but there is no compromise between bad material that stands contravening policy and undoing it.  Agee is not a relevant or notable expert; he is a KGB/DGI agent crank.  To put him here in the stead of respected scholars or policy-makers is undue weight (among other things).  And if you want to keep the other section then make it say what is actually said rather than interpolating clever remarks into it--that edit, by the way, belies your claim of me not being willing to "compromise".  129.71.73.248 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
RE: A liberal reform programme like the Alliance for Progress is a safety-valve for capitalist injustice and exploitation - as the frontier served for release and escape from oppression in American cities during the last century. Such a programme is only what the ruling-class will allow by way of redistribution during a time of danger to the system as a whole - something that runs against the current and the inherent drive to concentrate wealth and political power in ever fewer hands. Once the sense of urgency and danger fades, so also the pressure on the safety-valve declines and the natural forces for accumulation recuperate, soon wiping out the relative gains that the exploited obtained through reform. Reforms are temporary palliatives that can never eliminate the exploitative relationship on which capitalism is based.

The issue at hand appears to be whether Philip Agee counts as a 'reliable source' on this subject. Philip Agee does not appear to be an academic historian nor a scholar who's writings are peer-reviewed, and so his opinion fails the criteria set forward in Reliable_sources. If the position he is presenting is a widespread, mainstream (or even controversial) opinion, then an alternative, reliable source should be found to represent it - perhaps a secondary source which itself cites Agee and gives context to his opinion. If no other sources stating this position can be found it should be removed. --Davémon 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * fair enough. I will remove it myself. Travb (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced sentences
Removed because it is unsourced:
 * Some contemporary latin american scholars may argue that this was not incidentally, for the north american direct and strong support of most military coups in the region during this period was very much coherent with the initial objectives of the Alliance, given that the democratically elected governments that were overthrown by the dicators had clear leftist leanings (such as President João Goulart in Brazil and Salvador Allende in Chile).

Travb (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagerism
User:Davemon the third opinion who I asked to comment on this edit conflict wrote:


 * We're all on the same team - trying to make wikipedia great, and this article great. Rather than focusing on the style of each others edits, it might help to identify the POVs you are representing, honestly and openly. I've no doubt each of your POV's is resonable, well researched and citable - and for the benefits of laymen like myself - the article really should clearly lay out these opinions. BTW It's important when summarising that the detail and accuracy of the source isn't lost, "plagurism" isn't really an issue here - everything is cited and we calim "fair use" - only direct copyright violations are a problem. --Davémon 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis my own. As per the third opinion, plagurism is not an issue.

Here is the two differences (we have made a lot of progress, and are only arguing over one sentence now):

anon:


 * During the 1960s, several Latin American nations developed authoritarian military governments.

Myself:
 * During the 1960's, thirteen military dictatorships had replaced constitutional governments in Latin America.

I personally feel this second sentence is clearer, it gives a specific number. I can ask the third opinion wikipedian if necessary.

Travb (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Plagiarism is an issue here or anywhere that remotely pretends to be serious. You can not simply reprint material or change one or two words from a direct quotation.  It is in my view fine to reference that sentence and quote it directly in whatever matter but not to adopt it as part of what Wikipedia is ostensibly saying.  129.71.73.248 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether we agree with Plagiarism or not, it reflects consensus on how Wikipedia should be written. Indeed a certain degree of plagiarism is required by WP:V. If you think a stronger stance is required of Wikipedians, consider raising the issue at Village pump (policy). The "13... replaced constitutional" version is more informative, and unless it is inaccurately reflecting the content of the given source, suggest it retains that information. If the precise sentence structure is a copyright violation perhaps something like...


 * In latin america during the 1960s thirteen constitutional governments were replaced by military dictatorships.


 * would do the job? --Davémon 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the sentence with your suggestion User:Davemon. thanks. Travb (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in "US aid to Latin America"
'''In March 1969, the US ambassador to the OAS, William T. Denzer, explained to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs:

'''"When you look at net capital flows and their economic effect, and after all due credit is given to the U.S. effort to step up support to Latin America, one sees that not that much money has been put into Latin Shit after all."[2] [edit]

That can't be right. Anyone know what it used to be?

Why the attempt to confuse the American aid with the "net capital flows"?
The "profits" were repatriated by private companies that invested capital into Latin America, presumably building up the local economy in the process. The "debts" had to be paid because that's what you usually do after borrowing, you pay back your debts. And the "aid" was given by the American government to local governments and other institutions to further whatever aims the donor officials wanted to achieve. So what does it matter what the "net capital flow" was if these things have little relationship one to the other? If there were no aid, would the net flow be better? Maybe yes, maybe no, but so far this reads like uninformed leftist propaganda, not meaningful economic reasoning. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)