Talk:Lima Consensus

Possible NPOV Violation

Reading through this article it seems to me that the overall tone of the article along with certain sentences violates NPOV. Even upon reviewing the sources for the article they seem to be slanted in one direction so as to present a set of opinions as fact.

For example one sentence reads: "Those who support the Consensus are often free-market fundamentalists and view any economic interventionism as socialism or communism."

I would be interested in hearing what other editors think. GRosado 17:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRosado (talk • contribs)

About "Ultraconservatism" label

Before I removed the term, this article claimed that the Lima Consensus reforms were "ultraconservative", apparently based on two sources. The reason I removed said label, other than avoiding MOS:LABEL, was because the first one doesn't mentions conservatism and neither "ultraconservatism" nor any reference to conservative politics, and the second one, while it mentions "ultraconservatism", it refers more to the Lima Consensus as an "ultra-conservative creed of free market capitalism" rather than labeling the reforms made by the Consensus as being "ultraconservative". Proper labels are already mentioned like "neoliberal", "deregulatory" and "free-market". Since this is a discussion about an economic reform, it's better to avoid ideological or philosophical labels. Wikipedia describes Conservatism as "a cultural, social, and political philosophy", not an economic thought Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids tagging you since you're the one reverting the edits Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Hi. The sections above, and users such as @GRosado:, have already listed some of the issues in the article. Like other similar articles, including the Plan Verde, the article relies heavily on papers that reflect mostly the authors point of view, instead of a mainstream one. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @NoonIcarus,

I understand your concern about the potential bias due to reliance mainly on a few authors' views, I believe the argument about the lack of mainstream perspectives might not hold in this case. The papers referenced in the article, while they may represent the viewpoints of their respective authors (if any), are nonetheless based on verifiable research. These aren't merely personal opinions, but scholarly contributions that have undergone a review process before publication. Therefore, they hold significant value in academic discourse and are key in understanding the topic at hand

Furthermore, 'mainstream' does not necessarily equate to absolute truth or the most informed perspective. However, if you have additional sources that could further enrich the article, we would be happy to include them, be bold.

I would argue against deleting this article.

See also

• Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

Best Wishes,

Ultranuevo (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Tag to @WMrapids (since you are the creator and main contributor ), so you can calmly talk and come to a consensus with Noonlcarus, who thinks the whole article is biased Ultranuevo (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ultranuevo, kind regards. Please note that my main objection against the article (and rationale to nominate for deletion) is not related to neutrality, but rather original research. The article mixes economics measures already covered at the economic policy of the Alberto Fujimori administration with causes, reasons and opinion, which is a direct consequence of its scarse use in the academic field. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, @NoonIcarus,

I was replying to this thread, not to the deletion discussion.

BW,

Ultranuevo (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ultranuevo: Unfortunately, this appears to be an attempt by NoonIcarus to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially something similar to "someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion" (not necessarily my favorite article, but I created it). NoonIcarus then targeted a related article they had not been involved with and that I created, Plan Verde, with drive by tagging.

NoonIcarus, formerly known as Jamez42, had topic restrictions on Venezuelan topics in the past before (though many users supported a topic ban), so this tendentious behavior is not new. This user has followed my edits for months now and disputed my edits across dozens of articles, filing three administrator complaints against me and placing multiple block threats on my talk page. NoonIcarus has not edited Peru-related topics since our first editing interactions on 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt and it is clear that NoonIcarus has checked my article creation history to propose this deletion, making things personal. I'd like to note that NoonIcarus has supported expanded topic bans on users for performing disruptive edits on articles they were not previously involved with, similar to NoonIcarus' own behavior in this case.

This unremedied behavior of drive by tagging from NoonIcarus has not stopped after numerous discussions. This concern was specifically raised in two articles by @Burrobert: and I; Operation Gideon (2020) (see here), ZunZuneo (see here) and has now occurred with Plan Verde too. Such edits also occurred on the Venezuelan opposition[1] and the Guarimba[2][3] articles, including others. The apparent goal is for NoonIcarus to identify information they do not agree with (or to personally attack in this situation), tag the information as "unreliable", "POV" or as some similar designation and then subsequently remove this information after a period of time, which was previously explained here. A separate tactic of removing information was mentioned here, where NoonIcarus would inappropriately "restore" an article to its "last stable version" after an edit they disputed is placed.

In addition to this behavior, NoonIcarus has years of experience on Wikipedia which includes the ability to game the system. The user has edit warred in a page move war with @Amakuru: regarding the title of this article; NoonIcarus apparently attempted to cover this article by making it a disambiguation page while promoting a significantly less notable event as an article, making page moves difficult to revert. Similar behavior to prevent reversion has occurred on Spanish Wikipedia as well; NoonIcarus falsely accused my edit of being original research (investigación original) and removed the information, then accusing me of edit warring on my Spanish talk page (they were involved themselves) in an effort to prevent the re-addition of my reliably cited information. This gaming behavior has also included bad faith negotiations and stonewalling on La Salida.

So, Ultranuevo, while I know you said in this edit that you wanted to avoid "the need to call admins", we are at a point where four users are now dealing with disruptive editing performed by NoonIcarus not only on English Wikipedia, but on Spanish Wikipedia as well. I have done my best to avoid conflict, using multiple avenues to remain civil, including opening RfCs, using WP:3O and attempting dispute resolution, but all of this seems futile to prevent disruptive edits from NoonIcarus. Since I may be biased due to a long-standing conflict with the user, I will let other users be the judge after presenting their behavioral history here, though I will note that filing a report at WP:ANI may be warranted since NoonIcarus' behavior has not improved since restrictions were placed on them in 2020. WMrapids (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I refuse to engage in a discussion that is totally unrelated to the issue at hand and whose only purpose is to mudsling me and sidetrack the conversation. I was really hoping that these attacks would stop after the discussion at 1, but I'm dissapointed to see that's not the case. I'd be happy to talk further about the tag if needed, but not before this stops. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus, the problem is that you doesn't stop. Not even in the Spanish Wikipedia. I'm tired, I don't know how to proceed.

@WMrapids Any ideas?

Ultranuevo (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)