Talk:Lima Group

Map

The map needs a minor edit, it shows El Salvador as a member of the Lima Group despite the country backing Venezuela! Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vif12vf: Will make a fix.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done----ZiaLater (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador is a member of the Lima Group. source: https://www.14ymedio.com/internacional/Ecuador-Lima-rechaza-intervencion-Venezuela_0_2511948785.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisd000 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USA

Has anyone read an official explanation to why the United States hasn’t joined the group? I think it should be added to the article. Aaker (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems apparent that the main reason the US has not officially joined the group is because it is the driving force behind the formation of the group.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.204.170 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funding and Budgets

Are the funding and budget details of the Lima group made public?

2604:2000:14C5:8206:219:E3FF:FED3:9BF8 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

@97.80.233.19: You insist in adding that Mexico has retired from the Lima Group even though you have not provided specific sources for this claim and the media continues to quote Mexico's exception in the group's decision. Please provide a reference for this or stop the disruptive editing. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Maps needs an update.--MaoGo (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaoGo: You're right. For some reason it seems that Bolivia was not included to the vector image.

Done. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Membership

@Angele201002: Hi. Your edits are becoming troublesome for several reasons not mentioned in the edit summaries. First, you're including to the section "criticizing their interventionist nature", where the cited source only focuses on Bolivia's statements on Peru's position. Besides being a biased statement, it is not supported by the reference in an editorial voice and constitutes original research.

Additionally, the text added about Peru is redundant, said information is already included in the paragraph above, with the difference that it already clarifies its current foreign affairs position. I also don't appreciate your last summary telling me "can you read??", which clearly goes against civility in the project. I'm not sure of how proper weight Evo Morales' statements have in the article; Bolivia's position should be references by an incumbent official of the Bolivian government, plain and simple. Even in this case, since the statement remains a claim, Bolivia further shouldn't be removed from the infobox. You said that you have provided a source to back this up, but I can't find any difference between both versions (diff).

Last but not least, you're also removing maintenance inline tags without explanation (Bare url inline and Primary source inline). Because of all these reasons, I kindly ask you to self revert the changes and comment which are precisely the changes that you're proposing, which I assume is the claim that Bolivia left the group. Are there official statements that support this? Kind regards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: Well, at least you finally decided to come to the talk page, instead of simply reverting edits. The criticising their interventionist nature comment wasn't made by me, but some other editor on 19 August last year. However, a quick search on Luis Arce (President of Bolivia)'s Twitter page shows that he did call the Group interventionist (link: https://twitter.com/LuchoXBolivia/status/1424387337094635529), while Marcelo Ebrard (Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico) called it a shame (https://vanguardia.com.mx/noticias/otros-gobiernos-aplaudian-a-eu-senala-canciller-marcelo-ebrard-DX1642775).

About Peru, we are seemingly on the same page (nobody is saying that they withdrew). Although, the Peruvian ambassador to the OEA says that the Group has 'completed its cycle' aka it's not a functioning organ (https://elcomercio.pe/politica/gobierno/harold-forsyth-embajador-peruano-ante-la-oea-el-grupo-de-lima-ha-cumplido-su-ciclo-nicolas-maduro-venezuela-nndc-noticia/). However, as it wasn't a direct claim (something to the tone of 'the Lima Group doesn't exist anymore'), I did not add it to the article.

Reverting edits without proper explanation 'goes against civility in the project' as well.

Evo Morales is the leader of the party in power, MAS, not an opposition leader or a retired ex-president. The statement was 'Saludamos decisión del Hno. PedroCastilloTe y de su canciller Héctor Béjar de retirarse del Grupo de Lima, creado como instrumento injerencista contra gobiernos populares. Perú sigue actitud soberana de México, Bolivia y Argentina que abandonaron esa instancia sumisa al imperio.' Note that while his words have absolutely no weight for Peru (especially in the face of Peru's reverse on this subject), as leader of the ruling party, they do have weight for Bolivia. Another few links that state Bolivia has left the Grupo de Lima, one from Efe Spain (https://www.efe.com/efe/america/politica/guaido-se-aferra-a-la-presidencia-interina-pesar-de-las-criticas/20000035-4700781) that states 'Tal es el caso de Argentina, Bolivia y Perú, que lo respaldaron hasta que hubo cambios de Gobierno en esas naciones y que incluso llevó a que se retiraran del Grupo de Lima', El Deber Bolivia (https://eldeber.com.bo/mundo/peru-anuncia-su-salida-del-grupo-de-lima-y-apunta-a-una-politica-exterior-no-injerencista_242183), Canal N Perú (https://canaln.pe/actualidad/harold-forsyth-grupo-lima-ha-cumplido-su-ciclo-n439286), El Comercio Perú same link as the previous paragraph but it also states that Bolivia left (https://elcomercio.pe/politica/gobierno/harold-forsyth-embajador-peruano-ante-la-oea-el-grupo-de-lima-ha-cumplido-su-ciclo-nicolas-maduro-venezuela-nndc-noticia/). Do you have any reliable source that says that Bolivia remains a part of the group since 17.12.2021 (date of the Efe article)?

For the maintenance tags, yeah I agree that's my fault. Angele201002 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tone continues to cast aspersions. Following WP:BRD, just could just as easily (and should have) explained further your changes here. I gave mine through the edit summaries, which I thought would be enough until the issues accumulated.

Back to the topic, there the issue remains that there currently aren't sources referring to an "interventionist nature", and the one that you have provided, being from Twitter, are not realible to be used in the article. Regarding Bolivia, the positions previously held by Morales don't have any effect on the incumbent government. His statements might be important to reflect his party's views, but not the Bolivian State's. Since you're the one proposing changes, the onus rests on you to back the clais adequately with references, not the other way around. However, I did search for Bolivian official statements to back this up, similar to Peru's, and I haven't found any, which reinforces my concerns regarding this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries were literally ‘failed verification’, ‘unsourced’, ‘retired’ and some nonsense about Peru that no one was debating. Anyways, moving on, the official Twitter pages of Luis Arce and Marcelo Ebrard are certainly reliable to be used for their own quotes. Wikipedia RS agrees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) I did post a bunch of sources all of which confirm that Bolivia has left the group. Here’s the thing, there are sources that state that Bolivia has left the group but not a single RS that says that Bolivia is a part of the group. Why do you continue to insist that it is?Angele201002 (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a statement from the government. In the case of Argentina and Saint Lucia, we have sources that specifically mention this:[1][2] This means that Mexico requires better sourcing as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]