I read the article “Latin America-United States Relations” on Wikipedia. Instead of presenting both the U.S. and Latin American perspectives, the article focuses on the actions and plans of the U.S. toward Latin America. This is supported by the fact that the U.S. is often used as the subject in the content, as well as the larger proportion on U.S. foreign policies.

Apart from its perspective, the fact included in the article is not always referenced with reliable sources. A good example of this is the “19th Century to World War I” section. While there are hyperlinks to specific people and issues, the description of the treaties and processes are not cited. Despite most of the sections in the article are related to Latin America-United States Relations, some of them like “Academic Research” are not directly related.

In terms of the neutrality of the article, I think it is okay in general. But some of the content might seem to be biased. For example, the article mentions that most of the 10 million illegal immigrants are of Hispanic origins and these immigrants would send money back home. Not only are the statistics not cited, but the remarks of immigrants sending money is also pretty biased.

When it comes to the sources, most of them are working well. But some of them are only linking to the author’s Wikipedia page but not the book. Some of the sentences also seemed to be closely paraphrased. For example, the sentence “Latin America is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and its fastest-growing trading partner, as well as the largest source of drugs.” is similar to the sentence “It is the United States’ fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs” from the original source. On top of that, the sources used are not really updated. Some of the books and journal articles cited are from the 90s. In addition, there is no message posted on the talk page of the article. So, it is hard to trace the conversations going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic. The article is also not in WikiProjects. 

When asked to think of a “manly-man,” most lend their thoughts to the image of a buff robust figure, fearless in an act of danger. This notion of what a man is is also frequently portrayed across media platforms on the daily. Though, in originality, the topic of manliness often draws from machismo, the capsulation of what it means for one to be ‘manly’. The principles of machismo trace their roots from Spanish and Portuguese descent, a more in-depth ideology of the word macho, or to be manly.
My Wikipedia article takes a focus on the concepts of both Machismo and Caballerosidad, two notions of what masculinity means in a cultural sense in Latin America. This article does do a good job of shifting its focus to and from a variety of different cultures all of which have been participants or contributors to the ideals of this social structure. Machismo takes ground in Chile, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, among others. Within these, there is no direct bias or leading frame, though, in regards to influences, this page does take a slight lean towards the idea of Catholicism being a main contributor. However, this religion is known to be that of the Spanish who had taken over control of many of these areas, so while these statements may seem to call for disputed neutrality, looking further into the history behind it we can see that there is justification to the claim. The concept of masculinity developing subsets of male relation, such as homosociality, during times of copper mining is interesting and does stem off of the same topic. However, in mention of what distracts from the main topic at hand, I would say this segment could stand alone in a different Wikipedia article, focusing more on the social structures births from these concepts.
The information backing this article appears to be fairly reliable and stands its ground when links are tested for appropriateness, though on the same mentioned section of Masculinity In Context discussing social relations; ie: homosociality, we do find a lack of citations in the count. While this section does provide a citation, there aren’t as many as there could be to make this a truly reliable information source. And while there is no plagiarism that I found after running the article through a web-checker, in certain areas, specifically machismo in the Puerto Rican/American culture, the tone isn’t exactly up to par either. Wikipedia asks those creating edits to uphold themselves to specific standards in language, a more formal academic reading. This section contains a lot of colloquial language, which is good in the sense that many may find this easier to mentally digest, though for the sheer appearance of an article to portray itself as “an easy read” does demote itself to being less of a reliable source than one that does not. When writing larger segments as such splitting it up into many smaller paragraphs of the subject may lead to a more academic read as you can put a more filtered focus on each other details individually.
Seeing how this is as much of a tradition as well as part of many cultures, there can always be more added to the theory it progressively developed into the modern era. Segments talk about masculinity and the influence it has on being a man, as well as the negative influences it can inspire but are not tied to. However, there isn’t really a mention of positive influences other that the roots of machismo and caballerosidad, in chivalry and respect. While the talk page o this site is empty of any conversation, I would like to see a discussion about this modernized sense of chivalry and how it has evolved.

This source did a decent job, as far as Wikipedia articles go, of avoiding outright bias, citing well, and providing different perspectives to create a well-rounded informational text. Like most entries, however, it had a few places where improvements to argument, structure, and citation style, would have made the article more credible.

Firstly, the article did a relatively decent job at keeping bias to a minimum. It definitely seemed to be written from the perspective of someone not residing in Latin America, however, and I think it is safe to assume they may have been American. The author also tended to favor America slightly throughout the article. One example of this was when the Mexican-American war of 1846 was being discussed, and the article stated that “The American Military was easily triumphant” (Latin America – United States Relations; Overview, para. 2). This statement, while very obviously stating the superiority of the American military, does not explain this victory, leaving it up to the reader to make an assumption about this “easy” military defeat of the Mexican Army. For example, was it superior numbers that led to this victory? Geographical advantages? Tactical? None of these possibilities are mentioned. Many of the facts stated within the article, such as the example above, do not contain citations. However, the sources that are mentioned—including books, online sources, and the links—do not appear to have any apparent bias, although some links to tend to use language akin to the aforementioned “easily triumphant” claim, which may suggest bias toward one side or viewpoint of a particular group or person. Overall, the bias within the article was handled tastefully, if present at all.

The relevancy of the citations, facts, and links within the article seemed, at first glance, decently sufficient. Once I read further into the article, however, there were some phrases that seemed out of place at times, or unnecessary for the general understanding of the event or subject of discussion. This issue was not frequent nor consistent, but did happen noticeably a few times, which did prove to be a distraction, and hindered comprehension. Another issue the article had with distractions was the transitions. From paragraph to paragraph, most of the time the transitions were smooth and the timeline made sense. A few times, however, there was no transition and the timeline was as much as 50 years apart, with no mention as to why the events being discussed were related. For instance, between the fifth and sixth paragraph of the overview, the firth paragraph talks about the Mexican Revolution and a brief history and overview of the conflict. As it is mentioned, the Mexican Revolution took place in 1910 (Overview, para. 5). The next paragraph, however, jumps right into a discussion about the Cold War, which did not kick off until 1947. This gap, in both context and chronology, was not explained anywhere in the article. While this is not necessarily an issue that takes away from the content of the piece, it did make for an abrupt transition, and was stylistically unpleasant.

Many facts surrounding the overview section of the article that I mentioned above, and many others as well, did not include citations. There were links to different articles such as “Mexican-American War,” “France,” and “American Civil War” (Overview, para. 2), but these are not technically citations for facts. The few citations that do exist, however, seem to be reliable sources. There are a few books and online sources that are cited to back up information, but again, this does not even start until well into the overview section. There are, however, a plethora of links leading to other Wikipedia articles. These are typically just other countries, people, groups, or events that the reader may want to define or read into if they are unsure as to what or who they are. These links work for the most part, one link did not lead to an article, as Wikipedia claimed there was no article with that particular title. This did not prove to be an issue throughout the piece, all the other links led to other articles, and in the References page, the links I tried in there worked as well. Some links within the article seemed unnecessary, like “United States of America” and “Latin America,” (Introduction, para. 1), but this did not take away from the argument being made.

Although some links were unnecessary for understanding the argument, the article did tend to leave out perspectives that would have in turn enhanced the argument and provided better explanations for claims being made. As I read I was left wondering about the experiences, perspectives, and opinions of groups that were not mentioned. These included the citizens of the United States and Latin American countries, as well as military personnel, seeing as how there was a lot of discussion about battles and conflicts. This leads into the question of what was missing from the article. Overall, the article did a decent job of presenting a detailed timeline and a comprehensive history overview. Personally, I think diversity of perspectives was the main thing that was missing, as it would be interesting and beneficial to here more about the internal affairs of what was happening during the overarching events and themes that define the convoluted relationship between the United States and Latin America.

The entirety of Bolivars letter reads and feels like a swift backhand to the United States and likens it to that of a viscous diseases destined to spread and plague others with its’s ideals. He as well on page 173 describes the U.S. as almost a bully who is envious of those around him and eager to take what they have. “I can almost foresee a general conspiracy against poor Columbia, already the target of excessive envy by all the American republics.” These sentiments do read similar to those found within Rodo’s article as well, however there are some differences. The biggest one to me is that while in Rodo does diminish and demoralize the U.S. he also does somewhat pay it homage and respect. Almost like how you would to a rival in a sport, he doesn’t love the U.S. but he can respect certain things. This can be seen on page 34 where he states “Subsequently, their history is characterized by a uniformity that, although it may lack diversity in skills and values, does possess the intellectual beauty of logic.” While this statement does still feel like a backhanded compliment it is a compliment none the less. Which is better than what Bolivar was willing to give. At the end of the day while these two sources do have some differences in their approach of describing the U.S. ,I believe that both of these articles do take pride in their dissection and disdain of North America and would rather insult it than give it credit.

On the whole, I thought Rodo’s piece was condescending, and ridiculously so. Although he does spend a decent amount of time discussing some good things about North American achievements and culture, he does so with snide metaphors and colorfully dull language that consistently hints at the faults behind those achievements. A quote that summarizes this goal is “But to ignore a North American’s defects would seem to me as senseless as to deny his good qualities” (34). He basically spends an entire paragraph, which spans two full pages (34-35), putting two or more metaphors into each sentence to try and spice up the point he is trying to make: that North America, while good at some things, lacks the general culture and intellectual sophistication and uniqueness that makes Latin American so great. He goes on to say that to try and better a country by taking after another that has achieved apparent success is a stupid idea, a statement that I blatantly disagree with, considering the fact that some countries are more successful than others, and that this is a natural characteristic of society. Bolivar’s letter, although similar to Rodo’s Ariel in some ways, is much less bold in stating disdain for North America, although he still does. On page 173, he condemns the United States for plaguing “America with miseries in the name of Freedom,” which seems a rather weak claim coming from Bolivar, who seems to be only a fearfully “obedient servant” (173) to the British Colonel. Both pieces are openly opposed to the United States and the greatness it has achieved, and I think they would both eat their words if they saw what else it has accomplished since the composition of their pieces.

In Simon Bolívar’s piece, we see a thank you to Patrick Campbell for the many sentiments of Colombia. In this, we experience a glimpse of what can be seen as American spirituality in action, Imperialism.
The fact that the “reorganization of Colombia in accordance with the institutions proven by Europe in her wisdom and experience” (Bolívar,1) is not opposed shows us a sense of admiration and respect for the systems set in place. However, per what we find in Rodó, in certain aspects, “admiration and conviction are passive models of imitation, the main part of our imitative nature is our belief”, (Rodó, 32) in this sense, we imitate what we believe to be superior or prestigious, in other words, European notions or the embodiments that America is itself.
Looking at this theme of imperialism, as well as using “As He Himself Puts It,” we can see how wording like this is essentially verbal imperialism, as “to launch an effective argument you need to write the arguments of others.” (they say, 1) And by going so much as to the extent of viewing another nation as not superior, but worthy of having your devotion, is to take this and place it in action, thus succumbing to the reigns of European imperialistic trends.

Both Rodó’s Ariel and Bolívar’s Letter to Colonel Patrick Campbell show the fear of American dominion that Latin Americans possessed during the 19th and 20th centuries. Rodó states “I want each of you to be aware that when in the name of the rights of the spirit I resist the mode of North American utilitarianism, which they want to impose on us as the summa and model of civilization…” (Rodó, 37). Similarly, Bolívar demonstrates his anxiety concerning American domination when discussing the U.S.’s reaction to if a European were to be the next head of Colombia , “Can you imagine the opposition that would come from the new American states, and from the United States, which seems destined by Providence to plague America with miseries in the name of Freedom?” (Bolívar, 173). Both Rodó and Bolívar state that America seems hellbent upon imposing their values of liberty and virtue on the rest of the world, regardless of if they want to receive it or not. One difference between the two primary sources is the fact that Rodó praises American efficiency and lifestyle, despite it being devoid of individuality or diversity. Rodó first criticizes America: “I do not, however, see what is to be gained from denaturalizing the character- the personality- of a nation, from imposing an identification with a foreign model, while sacrificing irreplaceable uniqueness” (Rodó, 32). Rodó fears that if Latin America were to model their society after the U.S., they would lose touch with their traditional culture. However, Rodó can not help but acknowledge the positives of an American lifestyle: “Although their culture is far from being refined or spiritual, it is admirably efficient…” (Rodó, 35).