Talk:Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Birds
Cuba Portal
Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do:

Contents

[edit] Removal without elaboration of item contrasting to FTAA

I would like the user who deleted my addition, which contained no value judgment whatsoever, that showed that ALBA, in contrast to FTAA, is more of a barter system of state-owned or state-controlled resources and services, to explain himself here please. This is especially vexing because it was not taken here - to the talk page - before it was done. That would have been more appropriate. Secondly, all of the statements in my addition were completely backed up, without controversy or ambiguity, by the rest of the article, which remains! It seems that this deletion and the accusation of POV without elaboration is not kosher in my book, and I'd like to settle it here please. Could you please elaborate on why it was POV and justify your deletion? NYDCSP 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NYDCSP, you added to the page the following which was removed by another user;

(A)Unlike FTAA, which is based on opening markets for freer flow of mostly private goods and services, ALBA is more of a barter system of trading between the governments of the participants. All of its current and prospective member countries are ruled by regimes that control, seek to control, or once controlled their national economies through central planning, nationalization of major industries, government control of central banks and/or other Marxist or socialist methods.

You also wrote

(B)Newly-elected President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, who led the communist Sandinista regime in the 1980s,

Firstly, could you provide and attribute a source to the point that the ALBA is "more of a barter system of trading between the governments of the participants"? Every opinion, which this is, on a page should be sourced and attributed per WP:V. See WP:ATT--Zleitzen 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, begin with the definition of "barter" on Wikipedia itself:

Barter is a type of trade that does not use any medium of exchange, in which goods or services are exchanged for other goods and/or services. It can be bilateral or multilateral as trade. from Wikipedia article Barter

And then look at the rest of the same article:

A good example of this vision in practice are the results of the initial Cuba-Venezuela TCP, which was signed on December 14, 2004 by Presidents Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro. The agreement was aimed at the exchange of medical resources and petroleum between both nations. Venezuela delivers about 96,000 barrels of oil per day from its state-owned petroleum operations to Cuba at very favorable prices and Cuba in exchange sent 20,000 state-employed medical staff and thousands of teachers to Venezuela's slums. . . .President Evo Morales of poor but gas-rich Bolivia joined the TCP on April 29, 2006, only days before he announced his intention to nationalize Bolivia's hydrocarbon assets. Newly-elected President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, signed the agreement in January 2007; Venezuela agreed to forgive Nicaragua's $31 million debt as a result. from Wikipedia article Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas

And then explain to me why this needs a third party source? When did the word 'barter' suddenly become a loaded term? NYDCSP 00:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Barter isn't an especially loaded term, but I'm using this fairly uncontroversial example to explain why the other editor may of had problems with your addition. What you have written is at present still an opinion without a notable attributed source. Although to be fair there is other material that is also on unsourced on this page, where citations will also be needed. Please see WP:NOR which states;

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

It should also be remembered that using wikipedia itself as a source is not permitted.--Zleitzen 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your honesty, but I wish the editor who deleted it would elaborate. Should I source Webster's Dictionary for the definition of barter, which would then make it not my point of view? NYDCSP
No, the word barter is not original research, but the opinion that "the ALBA is more of a barter system of trading between the governments of the participants" is original research. I hoped that by referring you to the policies about not adding "ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" would explain this clearly. Apparently not. You would need to write that the ALBA "is viewed as more of a barter system of trading..." and add a citation for that claim. Perhaps attributing it within the text if neccessary ie. "According to so-and-so, the ALBA is viewed etc". The rest of your additions are, I hope you understand, more contentious and would have been reverted by 95% of editors. Nationalisation was the cornerstone of mainstream European government policy for many years and is not considered a "Marxist method", at least not in most of the world. The Sandinistas were/are not a "communist regime" etc. This, alongside the original theorising, is probably why the material was removed.--Zleitzen 01:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Your reply suggests there is something wrong or POV about nationalization, as if I said it wasn't mainstream? Huh? You're reading into what I wrote rather than focusing on the content, which is what this is about. Every single one of the regimes running the member countries of ALBA have pursued nationalization of resources and services as a cornerstone of their national economic strategies and cite Marxism and/or socialism as a basis for it -- this is their words, not mine, and I'm not rendering any judgment on whether it's "mainstream" or not, you are! -- and all of the trade described in this article and those in ALBA agreements is the trading of resources and services that are owned by the state (aka a barter system as commonly defined in any English dictionary). Frankly, that is not POV - that's fact - read the resources already cited in this article. You are implying that I was rendering some kind of negative opinion of nationalization in your last post here. Where did you get that? And the first line of the Wikipedia article on the Sandinistas says: "The Sandinista National Liberation Front (Spanish: Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional) is a Nicaraguan political party founded on the broad communist principles of the popular front." So I guess you'd better get your editor's pencil out and get to work on more than just my little paragraph if you're really serious (and fair) here. I am just really confused about the instant swarm of attention and deletions on what I still think is a small, factual addition of mine amidst all this. It's all very curious. I will be back to this page, and I will make sure this article has all the facts as at least this editor here believes they should be fully included, according to Wikipedia's standards. I hope we can reach agreement objectively.NYDCSP 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Puerto Rico

I am wondering about the wisdom of taking out the reference to Puerto Rico. It may be true that this country is not allowed to sign international treaties, but does that make that part of the article inaccurate? It talked about "Proposals have been made to the Government of Puerto Rico through radio, to join in a way or another the ALBA". I think the question is: is this an accurate statement? Not whether the Government of Puerto Rico has the constitutional right to do it or try and find some way around their constitutional bind. - Dave Smith 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It doesn't really make sense because Puerto Rico cannot join the ALBA in any way. It will be like saying that the Bronx is going to join the ALBA because of Chavez's generosity providing subsidized heating fuel. Bakersville 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Members

First of all, have Ecuador now joined ALBA? Secondly, I have read that some of the Caribbean states have joined, for example Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Could this be verified and moved into the article? --Jonte-- 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

P.M. Trinidad and Tobago: " He noted that Venezuela had used its Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) for integration and whilst Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St Vincent and the Grenadines have signed MOU on ALBA, "we cannot subscribe.""
However Iran is to become an affiliate member.
Iran says it plans to join Cuban-Venezuelan trade agreement as observer member

Other sources:

CaribDigita 05:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael Correa

The section about Ecuador needs updating now that Correa is the President of Ecuador. 84.12.87.164 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So is Ecuador a member of ALBA or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)