Talk:Organization of American States

America, the continent

and purpose

"To strengthen the peace and security of the continent."
"To eradicate extreme poverty, which constitutes an obstacle to the full democratic development of the peoples of the continent."
"The Organization has played a leading part in the removal of landmines deployed in member states and it has led negotiations to resolve the continent's remaining border disputes (Guatemala/Belize; Peru/Ecuador)."
"The OAS is one of the three agencies currently engaged in drafting a treaty aiming to establish a continental free trade area from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego."

According to this English Wikipedia, America is not a continent but a supercontinent. Or this article refers bad to the meaning, or all those discssions on "The Americas" article was just bullshit...

This illustrates the difference between primary speakers on the one hand and secondary speakers and multilingual situations on the other. While the concept of one American continent is not unknown in the English-speaking world, just seen as old-fashioned, the two American continents model is either unknown or hotly resented in Latin America. It was easier for the US and Canada to just let this usage slide than to endanger the enyire undertaking. --Khajidha (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

According to English Wikipedia "it was still not uncommon for American atlases to treat them as one continent up until World War II¨. Since the OAS was founded shortly after World War II, it makes sense that they used the most universally accepted option at the time.69.172.171.194 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela

The issue of Venezuela is complicated since the constitution doesn't give the interim president power to revert the decision made to exit the OAS. Looking at the law, it's clear that he only has a mandate to set new elections so I don't really see any reason to say Venezuela is still in the OAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.94.29.210 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this article biased wrt OAS way of being in the world?...

What about these perspectives?

Exposing the OAS' Anti-Venezuela, Pro-US Bias and Right-Wing Hypocrisy [1]

How the OAS and US Just Helped Overthrow Another GovernmentThe U.S. government and the Organization for American States can notch another coup on their belts. [2]

comment added by Williamwallacetooke (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

These perspectives are widely reported and would be worth inclusion. Why don't you add a "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section, as in other pages like for the OAU or ICC? Kyle MoJo (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Many of the references in the section were opinion articles or constituted WP:SYNTH, as well as including repeated content. As such, I have merged the content to the respective History section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Individual Rights and property ownership

What will be the consequences of every sovereign state in the Americas including the USA slowly and quietly transitioning from the free Republic of its founding fathers into the monster known as a democracy and majority rule? Democracy is basically winner take all and to hell with the minority rights. Lmnopxyz (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The Venezuelan State is not a member of the OAS, therefore it should be removed from the map.

Althought the OAS recognizes the Guaidó government, he does not control the state. He has basically no power at all, Maduro does, and sadly it seems like he will for a long time. It is wrong to put Venezuela as a member state. If no one opposes this, I will change their color to red in one week from now. Seekallknowledge (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

But Guaidó's appointee is still Venezuela's representative in the OAS, including its Permant Councils, and the organization voted to approve recognizing him as much. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

But none of the territory in that map is under Guaido's control. None. He essentially controls nothing in the Venezuelan state, therefore, it simply cannot be called a member state. He only controls certain companies outside Venezuela, but that doesn't change anything. Maybe, Icarus, we could reach a compromise and have the venezuelan territory not controlled by Guaidó shown as red (former member state) in the map, and in the list we have "Interim/National Assembly/Guaido's Venezuela as a member state. What do you think? Seekallknowledge (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I continue disagreeing on these points, mostly because of what I stated, but for the sake of a compromise I can note that the article of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights depicts an image that has distinguished the situation of Venezuela. While that map uses stripes for the country, a different color can also be considered (such as yellow), if it preferrable to you. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the map, as it is now, that is with Venezuela indicated among the members, can only generate confusion. Guaidò and his faction do not control any part of the nation, so there is no point in pointing him this way on the map. Maybe a different color, as suggested by NoonIcarus, could help understand the situation, but what do we put in the caption? If we do not find an explanatory solution, I would be in favor of removing Venezuela from the map.--Mhorg (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Possibly the "Disputed" caption or a similar label, along with an explanatory footnote, in the case it sounds alright. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: There are 3 options, then:

1- Venezuela remains a member state in the map because the OAS recognizes it as such. (supported by Icarus)

2- Venezuela is classified as a former member state because Guaido's government does not control the territory. (supported by me)

3- Venezuela is considered a "disputed member state" because of the conflict of both factions. Maybe colour it as yellow in the map. (support by me, icarus and considered possible by you)

I think 3 is, for now, the best option due to the dividing nature of the issue and the fact we all kinda accept it. Do we have an agreement? Seekallknowledge (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe we do, I can implemment the changes if Mhorg doesn't want any changes (a different color than yellow, for instance). --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see the change has been made, thank you! --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but really @NoonIcarus "But Guaidó's appointee is still Venezuela's representative in the OAS" Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

As recently as 29 September, nearly a year after I made that comment, Gustavo Tarre continues participating in the OAS' proceedings. Even the article currently mentions a failed attempt to remove him from his position. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The map showing Venezuela in a different color is a good resolution, and my perspective is that there's no need to do anything different at this time. Tarre continues to sit as an envoy. The facts are funny, because more than a majority of member states want the Guaido envoy out (more members than wanted a Guaido envoy in!), but it takes 2/3rds super majority to remove. There are maybe some places in the body of the article where wording could be revised a little bit but overall things seem good as-is. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I essentially think the same and I have little to add to this. I will try to help with this later on if possible. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus If this is true, and based on your one Commons revert action (especially part of its edit summary "The same situation happened with Venezuela."), I strongly urge you to agree that Nicaragua should better be yellow colored (instead of normal green), otherwise we have to point that who's the representative of OAS within Nicaragua before completing stay-away process, just note: Rodriguez, the ambassador of United States to Nicaragua, is totally unable to be "this man", as their Nicaraguan visa has been revoked, plus being sanctioned by NI government on border-entry. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The withdrawal process of Nicaragua has not finished, and the withdrawal has not been contested by the opposition within Nicaragua. Once the process ends, Nicaragua can be painted red. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus Even not finished today? Two-year period will soon past. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Nicaragua's Foreign Minister Denis Moncada announced the withdrawal on 19 November. As soon as the time passes, reliable sources will surely cover the news, which are essential for the change. In that case, I will be the first person to support the change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this should be changed now owing to the dissolving of Guaido's government. 174.89.94.18 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt about it my friend! I will do it once I have free time. Seekallknowledge (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Guaidó's government was not dissolved. Rather, Guaidó was dismissed and replaced by Dinorah Figuera. The OAS should hold a vote before this situation is reverted, just like it was approved in the first place. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The article says All independent nations of the Americas are members of the OAS. But Cuba is in red in the map.--Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably a bit simple:

Former member: Cuba

Probably the {{Supranational American bodies}} should also reflect so. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Correction to template has now been made. Wiz9999 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)