This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lima Consensus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
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)
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)
I would argue against deleting this article.
"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.
"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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lima Consensus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
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)
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)
I would argue against deleting this article.
"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.
"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)