Talk:Pacific Alliance

image of observer states is out of date
please fix it

Bias
All of the "reactions" are of very left-wing latin american leaders, and not a single positive reaction is included, even though there are plenty. The "reactions" section is clearly biased against the Pacific Alliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.126 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased "reactions" and why the whole section should be hidden for now
There is no "reaction" in the ALBA, Mercosur or UNASUR pages, and certainly no criticisms of the kind there are in this page. Unless neutral "reactions" are given to add to the overwhelming "reactions" listed here, the section should be hidden. Why are there no "reactions" to the other blocs? Why are there no accusations of "interventionism" there but there are here? And most importantly, why should these "reactions" be listed if they are clearly biased, even if they have a POV warning? It is my opinion that many more "reactions" need to be added before the whole section is unhidden, or else it shows clear bias - I could also easily add negative views about Mercosur, ALBA and UNASUR and leave them there with a neutral POV warning, but if it is not done there it should not be done here.


 * Actually, each article is discussed on its own merits, but I agree with the removal. Those criticisms listed conspiracy theories, not criticisms to actual things done by the alliance, and it sounds similar to "I don't like that guy because his face looks so evil" criticisms. Besides, the only real left-wing country in Latin America is the Cuban regime; the others are just countries who fall in the hype of calling themselves left-wing because it sounds politically correct. Cambalachero (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)