Jump to content

Talk:Javier Milei/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Biased in many sections

The article is extremely biased from a left wing perspective. Even GPT is easily able to provide a more neutral article. The section about 'Neo Marxist conspiracy theory' something something antisemitism is itself on the conspiracy theory level. 2A01:599:842:83CE:964A:4EA5:385F:7D11 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Relationships and partners

Hi can anyone add the partners of Javier Milei and they are: Daniela Mori (2018-2019) and Fátima Flórez (2023-present) Lamise 2023 (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lamise 2023: that sounds notable. Do you have any RS that we could use? Joe (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Added Fátima Flórez to the infobox since she is already mentioned in the personal life section and appears to be a notable person. I don't think Daniela Mori warrants inclusion in the infobox. Wow (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC); edited 20:52, 28 November 2023

Why is he described as "libertarian" while also "socially conservative"

A "socially conservative" with "right wing economical" views is not a libertarian, to me it looks like just a conservative painted in a fancy color. The whole page is very confusing with themself contradicting political philosophies being applied to him in like every sentence, can we clean that up? Are there any sources correctly describing his political views with the appropriate term (I'd guess something like conservative populist would fit) Forsen1337 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would libertarianism be mutually exclusive with conservatism? Joe (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
​ Check https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-readies-vote-likely-presidential-election-thriller-2023-11-19/ or https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/20/argentina-election-whats-next-after-javier-mileis-victory. There is left libertarianism and right libertarianism.207.96.32.81 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Milei is NOT right-wing

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/01/americas/chainsaw-candidate-argentina-javier-milei-hnk-intl/index.html CNN: "The ‘chainsaw’ candidate challenging Argentina’s left and right" --95.24.62.167 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing about this snippet indicates that Milei isn't right-wing. It merely states that he's running against Argentina's left ("Unión por la Patria") and Argentina's right ("Juntos por el Cambio"), which is true.
There are several sources within the article that place Milei squarely in the rightmost side of the spectrum and, barring that, Milei himself has been very outspoken about what his political leaning is. Santumerino (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem is, the article describes him as 'far-right', and while that's true, he probably isn't on par with, say, the people in the picture in the "Far-right politics" article. By using the terminology in tandem with the picture, you instantly bias any previously uninformed readers. 2601:44:180:98B0:F4:B4B8:F894:798D (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't describe him as "far-right"; the article says that he has been described as "far-right" by political opponents and media outlets, which are cited elsewhere in the article. There is no violation of neutrality here. WP Ludicer (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

w h a r

Far-right what? his coalition is not some 'extreme' far right thing, its a moderate chicago-school party Aucterine (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that far-right is synonymous with the political center these days, so they are basically claiming its a moderate centrist party. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, no. Moderate centrist parties such as the LibDems of the UK, CDU/CSU of Germany or US Democratic Party are roughly center to center-right economically. Anarcho-capitalism is either a solidly right-wing or very right-wing position in relation to those parties, no matter its merits or drawbacks. Zorblin (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
@Zorblin just pointing out that the policy proposals are more in line with the two US parties than the opposition. There is no anarcho-capitalism in the political program, and not minarchist either. The proposal does not even include cutting publicly funded education or health, just delegating it to the federal provinces. Basically centrist constitutional positions. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
And clicking on "far-right" link in the thirst sentence of the second paragraph gets you to the wiki page illustrated with people marching with swastika. 2601:601:1400:B580:95E3:995C:B2BC:96EE (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is trash for any political sensitive issue. The vast majority of editors are liberals (e.g. college students with a lot of free time) who bring in their bias. Lrzw (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia takes a deliberate and methodical consensus-based approach to issues. Maybe your views are right, but until there is definitive proof of that being true, wp:NPOV means that we must portray both sides of a debate proportionally. The amount of liberal content on WP is proportional to the amount of authoritative, clearly sourced liberal content in the media.
Also, if you cannot examine factuality beyond bias, perhaps WP is not "trash for any political sensitive issue [sic]". I offer the counter that you may not be able to analyze political issues well enough to gain information from sources you don't like. That is a skill to work on. Zorblin (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The main issue from my perspective is that the guidelines and policies on using sensational and headline news are vague, and is exploited heavily as "reliable sources". It seems like a bad idea and breaks down the trust of Wikipedia. It should rather be included as notable events, e.g. as is done under the "Media reactions" headline. Anyway, mostly off-topic for this discussion - so I'll end it here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I know that in theory Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, but that's simply not close to what happens in practice. You can interpret the rules in a way to fit your agenda and that's something many editors take advantage of. Lrzw (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

Framing Milei as a "far-right" politician is a dismissive mediatic and inimical libel to put him at the utmost fringe of the political spectrum rather than approach his complex and multi-variegated political philosophy in a fair and accurate manner. I'd rather suggest "libertarian" or even "right-libertarian" ("Anarcho-capitalist" would be a bit of a stretch, for, if genuinely anarchist, he would not be engaged in statist politics to start with), for it encompasses more precisely his classical liberal, Austrian-type economical, neoliberal, "laissez-faire" capitalist and Rothbardian and post-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist aspects of the intellectual activities and guiding thinking spelled out by Javier himself in his books, speeches and articles, on TV, and other media through which he has conveyed his ideas and ideology. I thank your attention and perusal at my editing proposal. Atlantisandlemuria (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ïvana (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Note that I'm a social democrat, but simply listing him as "far-right" would lack a great deal of context (and WP: NPOV concerns), and I don't see why listing him as anarcho-capitalist wouldn't be objective, clear, and suffice.
Ideologically, Milei has been widely described by reliable sources as significantly different from Trump, Le Pen, Salvini, and other right-wing populists, albeit with some admitted similarities. KlayCax (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Sexual preference" and gender identity are not a choice

From the article:

His support for freedom of choice on topics, such as drugs, prostitution, marriage, sexual preference, and gender identity, have been contrasted to his opposition to abortion and euthanasia.

There are two issues with this.

  1. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice. That's been proven awhile ago. If he said it was, it should be clearly indicated that it goes against scientific consensus.
  2. The term "sexual preference" is therefore misleading because it implies sexual orientation is a choice. If it's what he said it should be in quote marks.

(On a separate note, the sentence really needs references.)

81.2.103.240 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In this case, it appears that Milei is referring to the freedom to choose to publicly identify with whatever sex or sexual orientation a person wants. Also, it is acceptable for citations to appear in the body, rather than the lede, as long as the material summarized in the lede is cited in the body. Joe (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with Joe, the libertarian position is to accept individual choice, and it applies to public, personal and legal contexts. The choice is related to how you identify yourself, and which sexual preferences you entertain, not which gender or sexual orientation you are born with. How would you rephrase that to remove ambiguity? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead edit warring

Hi, @Esterau16:. There's not a consensus among editors for the heavily controversial additions you keep trying to add into the lead. (The vast majority of which is redundant or misleading.)

You're presently engaged in an edit war. KlayCax (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Milei is of Italian and Croatian descent

His mother's maiden name is Lucich. They are related to TV presenter Rodrigo Lussich, who said their grandparents migrated from Croatia to Argentina https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/rodrigo-lussich-sorprendio-a-todos-y-revelo-el-lazo-familiar-que-lo-une-con-javier-milei-nid20112023/ 190.193.62.232 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, is it to be added here?

Hi, please I beg for an answer, because my questions are never answered when I ask on talk pages :-( I read that Milei confirmed that he will move Argentina's embassy to Jerusalem: (Source)

The title (in Spanish) says: Milei confirms he wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

Is that to be added here or elsewhere?, please, I just never add anything out of fear of messing up the article, but I would like an opinion. CoryGlee (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Presidency

I have started a draft for the presidency of Javier Milei at Draft:Presidency of Javier Milei (just the basic structure for now). It's WP:TOOSOON for an actual article, but we can start with the things that are happening those days and hopefully it will be ready for December 10. Cambalachero (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Cambalachero: Great! I will definitely be adding sourced material there! --CoryGlee (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of the word “doctrine”

When discussing the “option for the poor,” this article misstates that it is a Catholic doctrine. Even their own linked article on the topic refers to it as a principle. The word doctrine has a definite meaning within Catholicism, which the “option for the poor” certainly does not merit. 206.174.162.88 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist?

The article lists Milei under the categories "Argentine conspiracy theorists" and "Christian conspiracy theorists". Nowhere else does the article state the word "conspiracy" or the phrases "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy theory/ies". If I'm missing something, where in the article does it describe him as a conspiracy theorist and what conspiracy theories has he promoted? Unknown0124 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"50 academic papers"

I believe the idea that Milei wrote 50 academic papers is overstated. When we consider academic papers, what most people have in mind is peer-reviewed journal articles. As best I can find, Milei has 0 articles published in top-ranked peer-reviewed journals. That would put him in contrast with, say, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve Chairperson Christy Romer, or CEA member and current Chicago fed president Austin Goolsbee, who are (or were) public servants with peer-reviewed academic credentials.

Long story short, if he wrote 50 "academic papers," I think there should be a link to a list where users could examine the purported papers and at least make up their own minds as to their value. Thesmeagol2 (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

whoa

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be impartial? Not sure I've seen such an ultra-determined agenda on Wikipedia. All the buzz-words and labels it used to pigeonhole people and topics into being viewed in very specific, emotionally pre-determined ways makes Wikipedia read worse than the Bible, and just as unbiased.

"This person is a heretic because they believe x and y! Better give them this and that label so people reading the article form preconceptions about them!"

It's pretty sickening, really, and I'd argue just as sickening as this candidate and what he believes. But the intentional warping of public opinion through the carefully orchestrated application of perjoratives and various other techniques just because you disagree with someone makes you worse.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a platform of dependability, but with such a flagrantly obvious agenda in some of the articles, it's unreasonable to consider it that in any way whatsoever.

People care about what other people have advocated for, but the stances themselves should be singled out objectively without the heresy-speak, without the villification.

That just makes Wikipedia look bush-league and a mouthpiece for a belief-system, and in no way can something like that ever be considered a professional or dependable source of information for any human being. 24.196.135.85 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, there is heavy activism against Milei in this article, but they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
"Woke"ipedia is a joke. and it does cater to the radical leftists. otherwise they would get their place blown up in a million pieces by the communists who think they are tolerant to everyone but they are just the opposite. just stay away from this site in general. In fact. Block it. and get everyone involved to condemn this sham of a crap site. I dont even care if they get destroyed in a dumpster fire. they need to go. PERIOD! 98.3.86.218 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@98.3.86.218 I think it would be more helpful to have an open discussion rather than censor and/or ignore each other. With that said, the policies and approach of Wikipedia seems not very suited for controversial topics, recentism and political content, e.g headline news is a poor source for an encyclopedia, yet its been used in this article extensively. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Do any of you have specific changes you'd like to see made to the article? If not, then these comments serve no purpose. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
i think we must all band together to make sure that this site is as neutral as possible. every user in this thread clearly knows what im talking about. We should discuss this somewhere, and check up on other controversial articles to remove all sorts of biases Adenyoyo (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Yep, the neutrality of Wikipedia only reflects the editors involved. If Wikipedia is not neutral, its because there is not enough editors challenging the content. As long as everyone participates in good faith, in accordance with NPOV guidelines, this will improve things. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to remove bias, please specify which parts are biased and which changes you would like to make. Saying that every user in this thread clearly knows what im talking about doesn't help bring around constructive change, and precision in what should be added is essential in building an encyclopedia. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Avoiding bias and not representing points of views as facts is essential, and it is key to distinguish what should be stated as facts and what should only be reported as labels attributed by some specific sources. However, this should be done in a constructive way — I invite you to look up Wikipedia:Right great wrongs to have an idea of what you should or shouldn't do. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The first libertarian president in world history.

I do not have permition to edit this article, so ask you for adding this fact and its sources: Javier Milei is first libertarian president in world history.

Sources:

Addition: there was a split in the Libertarian Party of Russia. Today there are two different organizations calling themselves the Libertarian Party of Russia and using the same symbols.

Also, I want to nominate this article for this fact in Did you know ... section/column on main Wikipedia page:
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Javier_Milei
Template_talk:Did_you_know#Javier_Milei
LALKOVED (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this must definitely be added. As there are no further disputes, i will add this Adenyoyo (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Most of these sources are from social media (Facebook, X/Twitter or Telegram) and do not correspond to the standard for sourcing at Wikipedia. A claim like "the first ever libertarian president" will be an inherently subjective one, as many different definitions of libertarianism have been used. It is better to represent this by citing Fox and NBC News as qualifying him as such, rather than stating it in an objective voice. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, that is not the purpose of DYK, which is to highlight recently expanded articles, rather than serving as a news update (In The News fits better, and they have indeed mentioned Javier Milei) or a collection of trivia (which we do not have on Wikipedia). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"austrian school" citation needed

The article describes Milei as being a "vocal member of the Austrian school of economics," which is considered a fringe "philosophy" by many economists. If true, this point in his biography requires a citation. Thesmeagol2 (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This is cited in Fiore Viani (2021) in the "political positions" section. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Wolverine

In "Public Image" presumably this should be Wolverine_(character) not the animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.33.18 (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed the link to Wolverine (character). --Wow (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Far-Right Designation

It's incredibly dishonest, and only to serves to further solidify the notion that Wikipedia is heavily biased towards left-wing orthodoxy. Appliedintensity (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Appliedintensity Do you have sources to back up your allegation that he drifts from his party's position? —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Where are the sources supporting the "far right" claim? All I see in the sources is opinions without substantiation. Merely being against abortion is not sufficient to make a person "far right" -- a majority of people are against abortion depending on the circumstances. jej1997 (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
BBC, New York Times, CNN, NPR, The Guardian, Politico, Reuters, just to name a few RS, all refer to him as a far right politician/libertarian/candidate. If you want something to be removed or changed the onus is on you to find sources supporting your claim. - Ïvana (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own article on the far-right, far-right politics would be nationalism, racism, xenophobia, extreme authoritarianism, anti-Semitism, and Nazism. There is no source of Milei ever mentioning race/ethnicity a single time throughout his campaign. And according to the sources already listed in this article, Milei supports freedom of choice regarding social issues including drugs, prostitution, and LGBTQ+ issues. None of that can be considered to be "far-right" in any way, shape, or form. CerealContainer (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
There are many sources which describe him as "far-right". Wikipedia points out that this is not a self-description, and attributes the label to those sources. What is your specific objection? WP Ludicer (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Plenty of sources don't call him far-right, including AP News, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and Wall Street Journal. MOS:LABEL is pretty clear about how sources should widely use such contentious labels before putting them in a lead. I would argue that sensational political headlines should not be used to support such labels.
Also, WP:ONUS suggests that it's up to editors to gain consensus for inclusion; thus far, I don't see a reason why we should consider it since I see that the articles that do include "far-right" appear to do so without any opinion as to what makes him far right. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Again, from what I see in the article, the label is attributed to the sources using them, not being applied in Wikipedia's voice (for example, if the lead were to say, "Javier Milei [...] is an Argentine far-right politician"); other descriptions, including his own self-identification as a "liberal libertarian" and "minarchist", are also in the article. And the sources using these labels are reliable and notable, which warrants giving them their due weight. Excluding what they have to say is not neutral. Why they describe him as far right, or whether you personally find their reasoning convincing, is completely irrelevant. It's not on us to decide which label from among all these sources is most apt. WP Ludicer (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
My argument is solely against the inclusion of this highly contentious label in the lead, and it is up to editors to decide how the lead is written. I believe it is appropriate to cover how sources characterize his politics in the article, but those characterizations should not necessarily make it to the lead without robust consensus among both sources and editors per MOS:LEAD. Apologies for the generalized nature of my comment. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we fix the "Dogs" section?

There is a baseless claim in the dogs section that he talks with his dead dogs. The cited source mentions that there was an unofficial biography without sources that mention the fact, and when asked about it, he didn't deny it. In the aforementioned interview he answers sarcastically stating that his dog must be the best political advisor ever for getting him this far. This doesn't belong here. 2803:9800:98C1:8F9C:802B:E985:D945:1012 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I second this.
Many of the links which criticise Javier have, as the original source of the information, the same author: Juan Luis González. He is/was openly advocating against Milei (for instance here, in his personal Instagram [1]https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzzDu1oAOgy/?hl=es).
There is no proof that the eccentricities stated in this section are true or false, or may be even be takenout of the original context. 77.230.99.200 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, his family is NOT of Italian origin. His father Norberto is Italian, mother is Croatian Alicia Lucich (Lučić Croatian) 95.168.116.32 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I removed the Italian origin sentence since it doesn't seem useful. Wow (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this could be included in the "public image" article instead. It should be clarified what the source is etc. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems nobody corrected the Dogs section yet. Undergalf (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Dogs section was fixed but there's still mention to the cloning of dogs wich is not confirmed as far as I know and the source cite the same unofficial biography that said he talks with his dogs. 2800:2144:7000:3A9:2E12:7042:371B:8303 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Typo

This paragraph has a typo:

ilei is known for his flamboyant personality, distinctive personal style, and strong media presence.

It's missing the "M" in Milei.

Can't edit due to the lock. CaseyE3100 (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

Remove “ for promoting the option for the poor, a social justice Catholic doctrine of aid to the underprivileged”. Not in source. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Quoted text not found.Leoneix (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Third paragraph is missing the M from his last name... "ilei is known for his flamboyant personality" should be "Milei is known for his flamboyant personality"

) Mariance95 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 Already done Typo reported in the request does not exist. The M is there. Shadow311 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Create a separate section for president with main article Presidency of Javier Milei CountO-14 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Milei is AGAINST the legalization of drugs and prostitution

In fact, Milei voted against the Cannabis Law in Congress as a national representative. The LLA government program proposes to pursue drug trafficking. Milei has said repeatedly that one of his biggest concerns is that many young Argentines fall into drugs. It is also not true that he is in favor of legalizing prostitution. The LLA program does not talk about prostitution.

I understand that many of these political positions arise from very old interviews, from when Milei was still an anarchist and did not participate in politics. Since his candidacy for Congress and his study of Judaism, Milei has become much more conservative. Maybe you could add this as context.

Thanks ;) 2800:810:549:20:107F:FCDD:9AFA:5898 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you have forgotten to use an edit request template which is available on Wikipedia and would be appropriate for this suggestion. Here is a suitable tag: Template:Edit extended-protected, but please do not type in just the template link as I have attached, please follow the instructions on the template webpage for properly inserting the template and suggesting this proposed change. Thank you for your contributions! Please remember to sign up as it brings many benefits such as greater privacy so users don't always see your IP address, other editors can also see the history of edits you have made which is particularly useful to tell whether a user is publishing spam content. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

“momemts” should be changed to “moments” in photo description 108.172.21.87 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

New reliable source for visits to resting place of rabbi Schneerson:


https://news.yahoo.com/catholic-argentina-incoming-president-rabbi-231230123.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZHJ1ZGdlcmVwb3J0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANZ7qYRByZ4i8AMowZ4YjPRaaRH3TNFdZNmaLYjY9yov4orbr4RZmeFQJdcH3gI7S3GBoMxxhbosFlb2b111HO4bVbiEQJYWcirwjthcLB3oOEDoyKDjslDrRsaIUjtnhGDgDrfZgkBps2MdUXX4bT3eZBF3jQzXb71tdkh185ya 69.243.30.4 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

The whole part where it says that Milei talk with his gods is not real. He never said that. It was extracted from a book written by person who never cited the sources. 201.182.80.18 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Correction: "dogs". 201.182.80.18 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Shadow311 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Relatives

Can you add his sister Karina in the box as relatives like that:

| relatives = Karina Milei (Sister) Jolianomans1505 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comment. Davide King (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Honorific prefix

Can the honorific prefix on the infobox be changed to the English language format? Just to be consistent with other articles for Heads of State.

Like this:

| honorific_prefix = His Excellency TheKeeperOfBooks (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

Delete or Change the link in this line, it currently links to Juan_Bautista_Alberdi who was dead before Milei was born:

Milei also hosted his own radio show, Demoliendo mitos (Demolishing Myths),[20] featuring regular appearances by Alberdian and right-wing libertarian personalities, including the economist and businessman Gustavo Lazzari, the lawyer Pablo Torres Barthe, and the political scientist María Zaldívar.[21][22] HaydenDeBoer (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Deltaspace42 and @HaydenDeBoer, where exactly was the issue with that? What does the fact he was dead before Milei was born have to do? "Alberdian" is clearly referring to being a supporter of Juan Bautista Alberdi (one can be a supporter of a politician that was born and still living in 2000 as of someone who was dead before 1900). Milei himself is a supporter of Alberdi, having praised Alberdi's 1853 constitution. Just because Alberdi is long dead does not change this. The sentence was clearly stating that hosts of the podcast included supporters of Alberdi and right-libertarianism. Davide King (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I didn't know that Alberdian means "supporting Juan Bautista Alberdi", I reverted my edit. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
No problem, no need to even say sorry about it. :-) Davide King (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Ahh yes, Same here I didn't realize that was a term for a supporter and not some kind of nickname for Alberdi. Thank you. 24.184.2.255 (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
No problem, I can see the confusion. Everything is okay. :-) Davide King (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Political positions

The heading ”Political positions” is currently listed as a part of a series on anarcho-capitalism. Milei’s views have been described a variety of ways and I believe it’s wrong for Wikipedia to make his article a part on series of anarcho-capitalism. In the linked article, he describes himself only “philosophically" as an anarcho-capitalist. Weirdly enough, the word “anarcho-capitalism” isn’t even mentioned anywhere in the entire “Political positions” heading. This I also find problematic. I suggest removing the “part of a series on anarcho-capitalism” template and instead add a little about how he has described himself in relation to anarcho-capitalism. https://www.economist.com/news/2023/09/07/an-interview-with-javier-milei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 08:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Fully agree with this. If we want to put subheaders about specific people's political positions in these series, it should only be done if the person is a key figure of the movement, without controversy about whether their views really correspond to it like for Milei. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Support most of the sources don't describe him as anarcho-capitalist, they at best include expressions like «self-described anarcho-capitalist». Wikipedia should not be based on primary sources. But, shouldn't this discussion be on Talk:Political positions of Javier Milei instead? Günther Frager (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2023

I summit that the title The Lion of Argentina be incorporated into the article since the people of Argentina have invested such epithet to him. 2606:6A40:4:1F06:4047:26FF:FEC2:9C25 (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right"

Is there a consensus for this to be in the lead? Wikipedia describes "far-right" as the following: Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.

Sources are already describing him as going in the same direction as Meloni in Italy. Substantially moderating his positions once elected. KlayCax (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A single source does not justify the alteration of so much content. Furthermore, speculation that he may moderate his stance upon taking office does not change the fact that reliable sources describe him as "far-right". I will revert your edit changing the lead until a clearer consensus is formed. Loytra (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Multiple sources have disputed it, however, @Loytra:. The sources are also using it in a different context from the Wikipedia article.
Also see here, here, and many others sources that have stated the same. The claim's massively WP: UNDUE. KlayCax (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
"Far-right" should NOT be in the lead, though having it when cited lower down in the article would not fail WP:UNDUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Either the political positions or public image section would be more appropriate than in the lead section. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Why it should not be in the lead but minarchist should be, when @Buidhe showed that the latter is not even the preferred one in independent reliable sources. We are not stating as fact, we are simply summarizing the most widely used labels used to describe him, and whether we like it or not, "far-right populist" is one of them. Davide King (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
A few sources that label Milei without giving any context to that label do not make for a lead. WP:HEADLINES and MOS:CONTENTIOUS make it pretty clear that a label such as far-right should be widely used to describe the subject. In most cases, the sources that use this label appear to be doing so to generate controversy and clicks; most of them do not describe how Milei is "far-right." Per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPREMOVE, editors should not restore this label in the lead without consensus. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
But we do not state it as fact, we say that is how he has been described (e.g. by reliable sources). I have also added other labels widely used by reliable sources but denying that "far-right populist/libertarian" (it redirects to Right-wing populism, not to Far-right politics, so you guys cannot complain about what the lead of "Far-right politics" says) is not a significant label used to describe him violates WP:NPOV. You write of multiple sources that "have disputed it" but only link to one (The Wall Street Journal), which I am not able to read and verify what it says (does it explicitly say what you support, or simply does not use the "far-right" label, in which case it does not undermine the significant number of reliable sources who do).
You cite WP:HEADLINE and MOS:CONTENTIOUS but the "far-right" is used as fact in the text (it is not limited to the headline), and it cannot be considered contentious when a significant number of reliable sources use it and when we do not state it as fact; as another user nicely put it, reliable sources are not required to explain why they are using the far-right label (I think they actually do, citing his right-wing populist proposals), it is sufficient that they use it, besides if you go to other Milei-related articles, you can see political scientists supporting this. Also see WP:CRYSTAL. Loytra is correct that "speculation that he may moderate his stance upon taking office does not change the fact that reliable sources describe him as 'far-right'." As for Meloni, I would look at "Italy's hard-right government is starting to look more radical". It is not as easy as it seems. Davide King (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
You say sources are "also using it in a different context from the Wikipedia article", I fail to see how that is true. I assume you are saying sources using the far-right label are using it the same way they describe radical-right populism (e.g. the same way scholars refer to right-wing populists as radical right, a subset of far-right politics that does not reject democracy), which incidentelly is what the previous wording supported, not neo-fascism or neo-Nazism (extreme right). But we do not have a "Radical right" (main topic) article, only Radical right (Europe) and Radical right (United States) (Milei is from Argentina), and the radical right remains a subset of far-right politics, so there is no issue. Davide King (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
But to play the Devil's advocate, Milei fits at least one box of the definition we use of "Far-right politics", e.g. reactionary (note that we say or rather than and), has been described as ultraconservative (ultraconservatism also fits several far-right politics boxes), and anarcho-capitalism is economically the most right-wing ideology on the political spectrum. He also said that he wants to return Argentina to 1900 (sic), mostly economically but still reactionary. People need to realize that far right is broader than just neo-fascism or neo-Nazism, and includes the radical right (distinguished from the extreme right, e.g. neo-fascism/Nazism), which scholars have used to categorize radical-right populist parties (e.g. those in Europe that we describe as far right, with the explanatory note). Although he has had controversies related to neo-Nazism (e.g. alleged neo-Nazi candidates and the Rodolfo Barra nomination), I do not think he is a neo-Nazi, and neither do reliable sources. But they do use the far-right label, by which they mean to say he is a far-right populist (as the lead says) rather than neo-fascist/Nazi. Davide King (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
In the long run I would like to see what scholarly sources have to say, rather than news articles. However, if the label should be changed it should be based on a comprehensive analysis about which ideology labels are most common in RS. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I obviously agree. This are what some political scientists have told reliable news sources. Davide King (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Others sources dispute this, however. It's not an instance of WP: CRYSTAL if dozens of reliable sources similarly and presently dispute the notion that he's far-right.
Readers already know about his anarcho-capitalist beliefs. Do we have to put a "label" on it? I can't see how this improves the state of the article. KlayCax (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Especially in the lead section where it is WP:UNDUE. Not disputing that this could appear, once, in the public image or political positions component with sources and attributions. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm really struggling to see - even if editors consider "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism" far-right - how it is easier for readers if we replace it with the latter.
What's exactly the argument for inclusion? No one here has provided one. KlayCax (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Are you serious? It is literally WP:DUE due to being used by a significant number of reliable sources (even the conservative Daily Telegraph used it!). Since we are not stating it as fact, that other source dispute it (do they actually say that or do they express their opinion Milei will govern more moderately) is irrelevant, since the wording simply reports how he has been described, among other labels, and is not stated as fact, in which case it would be contentious.
Davide King (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Why don't we just provide his beliefs? Generally, we refrain from putting politicians on an arbitrary political spectrum.
What information is denoted with "far-right" that is not with "anarcho-capitalist" or "minarchist"? And multiple sources do dispute the wording.
The reliable sources are also using it in a different way from how Wikipedia defines it. KlayCax (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
"Why don't we just provide his beliefs? Generally, we refrain from putting politicians on an arbitrary political spectrum."
  • Are you serious? Because Wikipedia is based around INDEPENDENT secondary reliable sources. Why should we only put his self-descriptions and not what reliable sources have actually said. By following your logic, we must not say that Adolf Hitler was a fascist and antisemite, and we must repeat Nazi propaganda or what the party claimed. That is not how Wikipedia works, and that is obviously an exaggerated example, but if we were in the 1930s, your argument would support that we avoid describing Hitler as a fascist antisemite and say that he is just a National Socialist. Do you understand how your argument is flawed?

    "And multiple sources do dispute the wording"
  • You keep saying that but guess what? Multiple sources also do dispute that he is a libertarian, yet you have no problem having that in the lead? Disputing does not mean negation, since we are not stating anything as fact, merely summarizing how he has been described by independent secondary reliable sources.

    "The reliable sources are also using it in a different way from how Wikipedia defines it."
  • But "far-right populist" (as I suggest) links to Right-wing populism, not Far-right politics. And I already explained to you that reliable sources are using "far-right" to mean "radical-right populism". "Radical right" is a subset of far-right politics that does not oppose democracy. It is still far-right, so your claim is WP:OR.
Davide King (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
There are too many reliable sources that have described Javier Milei as far-right, see below:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Esterau16 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
And other reliable sources consistently dispute the notion. That's the problem. (They're also almost always - if not always - using it in ways that the Wikipedia article doesn't.)
So if readers click "far-right" on his article, they'll see:

Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, refers to a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies

Do you see how that's misleading?
The obsessive need for editors to put every politician upon an arbitrary political spectrum — which is used in widely different ways by even reliable sources — is not what Wikipedia is for. One wonders why we can't just put "anarcho-capitalist" and "minarchist" (terms that have very clear meanings) instead of replacing it with "far right" (a term that is murky, unclear, and is used in widely different ways.)
Multiple editors have already opposed it being added into the lead. I'm not sure what the problem is with the present wording. If anything, it makes his political beliefs far more clear.
Far-right means many things. Anarcho-capitalist and/or minarchist is very clear and concise. I'm struggling to see what the issue is. KlayCax (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense to me @KlayCax. Sound reasoning and great work following the specific WP policies in guiding this. Especially WP:DUE and others. Also WP:RECENT should play a role here in guiding the writing so that it does not just focus on a flash of specific sources that might use one descriptor that has conflicting reports from what appears to also be the longer term trend with regard to the subject matter. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want to establish a longer-term trend (in the past and present, not in a conjectured future), you also have the same burden of providing reliable sources describing it. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't biased against recent information, and if there is indeed a trend, the most accurate and up-to-date descriptions would be ideal. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@KlayCax, you are acting as though we are staing as fact that he is far right; we are not. What we are saying is that he has also been described as far-right, in addition to right-wing libertarian, ultraconservative, and ultra-liberal, among others. Removal of far-right populist is tanamount to WP:NPOV violations, in that a significant numbers of reliable sources are dismissed under the guise of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Again, we are not stating any of that as fact, just that he has been described as such. That other sources have used different labels, it does not negate the fact that many reliable sources used the far-right label to refer to his radical right-wing populist views. Davide King (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue with far right in the lead is that unless widely used by sources which describe him as such, it just doesn't belong there (per MOS:LABEL). As I've mentioned above, if a news source puts far right in the headline, it might as well be WP:HEADLINE (even if they repeat it in the body, it's pretty obvious that MSM outlets will use such terms to generate clicks without regard to the actual positions entailed in such political alignment). Thus far, I've not been convinced that Wikipedia should apply this label in the lead, however, it seems appropriate to mention that some news outlets have used that term to describe him in the body. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It needs gone but I don't have permissions to revert. Completely agree. This is a massive WP: NPOV violation. Could you revert for me? Thanks.
@KlayCax: is right. Anarcho-capitalist and minarchist actually showcases what he believes in. The alternative just seems like it's pushing an idea in the reader's mind that he's "bad". StardustToStardust (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
"Javier Milei" "far right" on Google News in the last month = around 100 hits
"Javier Milei" "minarchist" on Google News in the last month = 7 hits
More evidence necessary that this term is actually the preferred one in independent RS. If not, then we are POV pushing by using it in preference to the more commonly used term. (t · c) buidhe 08:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
That's not what WP: DUE means.
Considering that there is a multitude of sources that contradict this notion: then it's still undue. As @Kcmastrpc:, @StardustToStardust:, @Iljhgtn:, and many other editors on here are stated: why are we using a vague and amorphous term like "far-right" when we can give his specific ideology in the lead? This isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a case of: "it's a better description" and not subjective. KlayCax (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Again with this nonsense argument. If we were to say as fact that he is a far-right populist politician, then you may have had a point. Since we are merely summarizing how he has been described by reliable sources, that one source uses another label, and another uses yet another, it does not mean one excludes the other. It is indeed violating WP:NPOV by excluding a term that has been widely used by reliable sources, and it is WP:OR to say that it does not fit with what with say at Far-right politics (since my proposed wording would link to Right-wing populism but with far-right added, not the far-right politics article) or that the source does note explain it (I think they actually do).
Davide King (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
At this point you're deep in the realm of conjecture. Saying that news sources labeling him as "far-right" only do it to generate clicks is, without evidence backing it up, a baseless assertion. The same argument could be used to dismiss virtually any source. All news sources do attempt to drive engagement, that doesn't give us an excuse to selectively dismiss what they say. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not even clear that sources "dispute" that he is far right if they simply choose to use another label that may also apply. Everyone who is far right is also right wing, by definition. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Exactly! Thank you. Davide King (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism also has had various meanings corresponding to its various schools of thoughts. Also, we're not saying in wikivoice that he's either. Only that RS label him as such, which is what we should report.
Also, the version you've reverted to, claiming it was supported by 4+ people here, doesn't only include changes describing how his political ideology has been reported (what we are debating right now) but also other unrelated and arguably biased language/weasel words, like claiming that his views distinguish him in the Argentine political landscape or labeling Argentina's ties with China geopolitical entanglement. Neither of these have been discussed here, and it would be dishonest to claim that support was for all of these changes. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. I have fixed these errors but avoided using "far-right populist" out of fear of getting reverted again, with the inclusion of these mistakes. WP:MOSLEAD says the lead must follow the body, and this is what it says: Milei's stances have been described in many different ways.[114] He has been variously described as far right,[115][116][117] far-right populist,[118][119][120] right-wing libertarian,[121][122][123] ultraconservative,[124][125][126] and ultra-liberal.[127][128][129] Having only "right-wing libertarian" and "right-wing populist", and not "far-right populist" or even "ultraconservative", or use "ultra-liberal" in relation to his economic views, violates this and WP:NPOV. Davide King (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Since WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, then we should probably just summarize as, "Milei has been described by media outlets as having a wide range of political affiliations." Giving any particular label favor in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
That's not what we'd usually do for any other politician. There's no reason to make an exception here. Media outlets describe him in various ways, we should mention them, not "compromise" by not saying anything at all. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
For most politicians, there is a preference for very neutral summaries[14][15][16][17] (I can keep going). If we're going to list every political label uttered by RS's in the lead, why even bother having it in the body (or vice versa)? What I'm suggesting here is that we either summarize or we don't, and thus far it seems we're at an impasse with regards to how to best summarize; thus, my suggestion is that we don't and we just leave such matters to historians (when the time comes). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
These are all parliamentary politicians though. Look at Jair Bolsonaro, a more accurate comparison, for example. Davide King (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Summarizing, here, is mentioning the political labels that come up repeatedly in RS (that is, not just a single random opinion). There's a middle ground between "having nothing in the lead" and "having every single thing from the body in the lead", and that's the entire point of summarizing. Of course it's not easy, but leaving it to historians of several decades in the future is not what Wikipedia is supposed to do. There's no "either we summarize or we don't", the lead is supposed to summarize the body. That's the entire reason for it to exist.
We don't just omit entire pieces of information just because it's hard to find a precise wording. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
That is probably even worse since it does not explain or summarize anything. Also several of these labels are not necessarily in contradiction. As noted by Buidhe, "It's not even clear that sources 'dispute' that he is far right if they simply choose to use another label that may also apply. Everyone who is far right is also right wing, by definition." Ultraconservative is not necessarily a contradiction with "far-right populist" (many right-wing populists are in fact conservatives, more conservative than the mainstream right-wing party), and neither is "right-wing libertarian", since such libertarians have been described as populists (paleolibertarianism, a label that Milei used to describe himself, is literally the populist right-wing libertarian strategy) and many right-wing populists are economically liberal or neoliberal. Davide King (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding if needed that "liberal" here only refers to economic policies, and should not be confused with social liberalism or American liberalism. Here, being ultraliberal (economically) and ultraconservative are not contradicting labels, and neither is incompatible with being far-right. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Classical liberal is the term that would be most appropriate for Milei if using the term "liberal" and in seeking to avoid confusion between social liberalism and American liberalism, and furthermore, is backed up by numerous sources [2], [3], [4]. Neoliberal probably ought to be avoided since it is a pejorative used only by critics and is never used by someone to self-describe, though of course it could be used, with attribution, as a "how he has been described" component of text in a section in the public image probably more appropriately than political positions. Even Jacobin points this out. [5] Iljhgtn (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Once could argue that libertarian, which was taken from the left, is an euphemism or a fancier term for neoliberalism. Indeed, most of the economic policies advocated by right-wing libertarians fit neoliberal thories, and several Austrian School economists that are supported by Milei took part in that project. As for it being a pejorative, that can certainly happen, like with any other term. But I do not think that, applied to Milei, is a pejorative; in fact, one could argue that "ultra-liberal" is more pejorative. Also, as the Jacobin piece you linked, it shows that the pejorative is mainly when used in reference to centre-left politicians as neoliberal. It is not a pejorative when used in reference to the paradigm shift away from Keynesianism and towards liberalization and economic liberalism (the "-neo" part is because there are some differences from the earlier economic liberalism), which was started by Thatcher and Reagan. It is not a pejorative when referring to right-wing politicians who indeed followed its economic precepts.

Now, in reference to what you wrote above, we could slightly expand the "Political positions" section to explain that his ultraconservatism comes from his social policies (the lead makes him appear less conservative than he actually is) and the ultraliberalism from his economic policies, so that the lead does not simply repeat that but summarizes it. You say that we either summarizes it or not but as long as we have some labels, it is an NPOV violation not include those who are more due according to reliable sources.
Davide King (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Everything we're talking about here is with attribution, we don't state him being of any specific ideology as an objective fact. I'm not sure "neoliberal" is necessarily a pejorative – you're saying Even Jacobin points this out, but they, despite being a pretty explicitly left-leaning newspaper, actually deconstruct that idea in the exact article you've linked, explaining why the arguments against neoliberalism being a separate thing from classical liberalism don't really hold. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem with the term "far-right" is that it's a subjective label without an objective criteria. For example, far-right of 100 years ago is different from the far-right of today and the far-right of the USA is different from the far-right of Japan.
As Wikipedia defines far-right, far-right is fascism, neo-Nazism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, etc. Labels like "Nazi" or "fascist" on the other hand have an objective criteria and can't be disputed. So if you want to put "far-right" on the lead of Milei's page, and especially if you are going to hyperlink to the Wikipedia article about the far-right, you should have sources that claim he's a neo-Nazi, fascist, xenophobe, etc.
Otherwise the definition of far-right from Reuters isn't going to match with the definition that is going to be hyperlinked to in this Wikipedia page. And that can be extremely misleading and confusing to readers who will click the hyperlink and think "Wow! Is Milei a Nazi?" CerealContainer (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@CerealContainer, as I already wrote plenty of times, it is clear from context (e.g. comparisons with other right-wing populist leaders) that, by "far-right", reliable sources clearly mean to say Milei is a radical-right populist/libertarian (the radical right is a subset of far-right politics that does not oppose democracy), not a neo-Nazi or neo-fascist. Also my proposal is not to state it as fact and to use "far-right populist", which redirects to "Right-wing populism", not "Far-right politics", so these concerns should not be a problem.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself, "Wikipedia doesn't lead; it follows". The solution is to make the "Far-right politics" more clear on this because "far-right" is not limited to neo-Nazis or neo-fascists ("Neo-Nazism is considered a particular form of far-right politics and right-wing extremism.") and certainly the solution is not violating WP:NPOV by not having one of the "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and instead having the less significant, in the lead. And as noted by @Chaotic Enby, as they told to a user who dismissed reliable sources, at this point "you're deep in the realm of conjecture. Saying that news sources labeling him as 'far-right' only do it to generate clicks [or in this case 'a subjective label without an objective criteria'] is, without evidence backing it up, a baseless assertion. The same argument could be used to dismiss virtually any source."

We usually do not dismiss plenty of generally reliable sources because we do not like the labels or the wording they used. "Wikipedia doesn't lead; it follows". There are many people who think the Nazis were far-left socialists but Wikipedia does not care and correctly say they were far-right antisemite fascists. And NPOV means neutral editing [e.g. attribute the label to a significant number of reliable sources without stating it as fact], not neutral content [e.g. we do not exclude a label because reasons, including fears of somehow damaging Milei's image]. Again, "Wikipedia doesn't lead; it follows". MOS:CONTENTIOUS actually says: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

Finally, no one is arguing to use "far-right" as fact or that we say "Javier Milei ... is an Argentine far-right politician." Davide King (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
1. Then the link in this article to the far-right Wikipedia article should be replaced with right-wing populism.
2. I never claimed that the sources call him far-right for ulterior reasons. I said that their definition and usage of the term doesn't line up with Wikipedia's definition of "far-right." So at best, the article should say "some sources describe him as far-right" rather than putting it anywhere near the lead.
3. The link about not calling stuff a "cult" or "freedom fighter" prove my point about how far-right is just as subjective as "cult" or "freedom fighter." It has an implied assumption and negative connotation behind it that most sources would not consider to be accurate. For example, no reliable source calls him a fascist or neo-Nazi.
4. Some people in this talk page seem to be proposing putting it in the short description or in the lead. CerealContainer (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it is WP:DUE in the article, WP:UNDUE in the lead. And while the lead is supposed to sum up the article, we also have to factor giving some things, especially deeply contentious things, undue weight. Which is why many contributors here agree that the "far-right" descriptors are best left in the appropriate section of the body of the article mentioned and not given undue weight in the lead. We still use numerous "right wing" descriptors anyway as currently written, including: right-wing libertarian, and right-wing populist. It is debatable if even those are appropriate, but frankly that is agreed upon that those properly identify and encompass the "has been described" nature of the differing media reports more than adequately for purposes of the lead section. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem I usually find with the "Far-right" label is, not only it can mean multiple things (from "right-wing but more boisterous than usual" to actual nazism), but most sources that use it do not take the time to discuss it or provide a rationale for the use. It is simply said as a quick adjective to place someone inside an arbitrary political spectrum, and then move to the actual info of the article. Some sources may use it for a well-intentioned desire to provide context, but others do want to harm Milei's reputation by branding him a nazi (and I'm not exagerating). Why such insistence to include this label, with unclear meaning at best and derogative ones at worst, if we have plenty of more precise ones to use? Cambalachero (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I would not have an issue if all this was also applied to more radical left-wing politics for consistency. After all, how it makes sense to put in the same category anarchists/libertarian socialists with Stalinists? Mind you that, unlike the far-right for which we have an academic handbook, it is even more less clear who belongs to which, so all of this equally applies to far-left politics but I have mostly experienced users complaining about right-wing parties or politicians being labelled as far-right. Remember, we are not even stating it as fact, just that he has been described as far-right, which even you acknowledge; you seem to say we should not have it in the lead, even though it has been widely used by reliable sources, simply because "most sources that use it do not take the time to discuss it or provide a rationale for the use". Anyway, where are these reliable sources who "do want to harm Milei's reputation by branding him a nazi"? The source you provided only supports the claim that Maduro called him a neo-Nazi, which is true (he really said that) but obviously Maduro is not a reliable source. Removing "far-right" just because of fear that the subject is being harmed, even though that label is properly attributed, and not used as fact, to a significant number of reliable sources — sorry but that is not really a good argument. I also think it is clear that reliable sources are using far-right in the same context radical-right populist party, such as Alternative for Germany, Vox, et all., are called far-right, even though the correct scholarly definition is that of a radical right that does not oppose democracy. This radical right is still a subset of the far right, so it is not a negation, it just appears most reliable sources prefer using far-left or far-right rather than radical left or far-right. To reiterate, reliable sources clearly use far-right to place Milei within the context of radical right-wing populist politics, certainly not neo-Nazism. Davide King (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
1. You're not going to find many sources that are considered reliable (by Wiki) using the term far-left for almost anyone, so making that observation, as astute as it is, just doesn't hold any water.
2. I don't find the term to be widely used considering the following; however, it does appear to be in ubiquitous use among sources that:
  • seem to be nothing more than sensational or political hit-WP:RSOPINION pieces.
  • engage in the type of label bingo that conveniently echoes a WP:HEADLINE.
  • and lack any cohesive rationale for how they came to the conclusion that Milei is far-right.
3. No one is arguing that we remove far-right from the article body, just that it doesn't belong in the lead.
Since we still don't have a consensus on whether the sourcing used to label Milei has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead, perhaps it's time to call for an RfC? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Do you really think the Associated Press, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Politico, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and similar generally reliable sources do not use the far-left label for anyone? A quick "far-left" research would tell you otherwhise but let's focus on the elephant in the room.
  • Buidhe's research above shows otherwise. None of what you listed is grounded in policy, since the label is used as fact in the article's text, which is not an op-ed, and not just a headline. That it "seem[s] to be nothing more than sensational or political hit-WP:RSOPINION pieces" and "lack any cohesive rationale for how they came to the conclusion that Milei is far-right" looks like your WP:OR. Indeed, the same applies to the far-left, where a party of the left of the centre-left is described as far-left without explaining why, but that is not up to us to interpret and is why we use these labels as attributed descriptions and not as facts. Since none of this is attributed as fact, opposition to it seems more to be an "I don't like it" (see the comment above being worried that it would damage Milei's image but that is not Wikipedia's problem, we are simply reporting what reliable sources have said, so he should complain to them, not to us) than anything.
  • And the reason why is you guys don't like it? There is no valid reason, grounded in policy, that would support such a removal.
I agree with an RfC but I would not limit it to just "far-right". I would make it clear there are alternatives, such as "far-right populist", which was how I edited it (from "right-wing populist" to "far-right populist"), so that the far-right label is used (per reliable sources) but does not link to Far-right politics, since you claim it contradicts it. Davide King (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Any of those labels would be equally problematic in the lead, but I guess the RfC would be where that is determined ultimately. Again, the main aspect of this discussion revolves around the placement of "far-right" in the lead section, versus some mention in the appropriate section, with attribution (most likely public image in my view). We have hashed that out ad nauseum at this point. Also, for what it is worth, I have seen "far-left" disallowed on pages that otherwise might merit the descriptor, but that said, I think your argument of "for consistency" would then be well applied if we were to next look at Jair Bolsonaro then if you really felt that a larger issue of consistency need be applied. I hadn't looked at that page previously, but it was mentioned above. I for one, am satisfied with just looking at this article for now, and ensuring the lead reflect the WP policies invoked which demonstrate why "far-right" is inappropriate within the lead of this article. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
"Also, for what it is worth, I have seen 'far-left' disallowed on pages that otherwise might merit the descriptor." Who are those pages? I am curious about whether these are democratic socialists and left-wing social democrats or more radical figures, in which case I may agree it could merit the descriptor. Also I am not sure I understand your comment about Bolsonaro, whose lead includes "A polarizing and controversial politician, Bolsonaro's views and comments, which have been described as far-right and populist". So are we really going to ignore a bunch of reliable sources because we do not like what they say? For the myriad of sources that support the label, see "Academic analysis" and "Election news coverage".
Davide King (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I have not thoroughly investigated the sources behind the Bolsonaro descriptor. Not doing that right now either. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
We should be phrasing out "left-right" descriptions on Wikipedia, if anything. I've never seen an article improved by it. Outside of perhaps it being used in discussions of French Revolutionary politics. (Where the left-wing was republicanism and a rejection of the divine right of kings; the right-wing, the inverse.) Today? Labeling parties "far-left" or "center-right" is so meaningless that its useless. KlayCax (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, we're supposed to follow, not lead. If RS describe politicians using a left-right framework, we should report that they were described as such, even if we don't say it ourselves in wikivoice. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
You're dismissing sources without any evidence for it. Saying that reputable sources are engag[ing] in label bingo just because they use a word you disagree with is not a valid argument without anything to actually back it up, and is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Also, from the policies you quoted:
  • WP:RSOPINION talks about opinion pieces, and only says we shouldn't quote them as facts but report on what they said. Which is exactly what we're doing, attributing these as how the person is described in media.
  • WP:HEADLINE, as the name says, talks about headlines. Not "article bodies written like headlines" or "words that appear in headlines", no, actual headlines. So it's simply not relevant to the discussion, as these descriptions are not found only in headlines.
ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
"I would not have an issue if all this was also applied to more radical left-wing politics for consistency." That's neither here nor there. If you have some concern over the categorization of other articles unrelated to this one, start a discussion at their talk pages, or at some wikiproject or project page. Cambalachero (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It is clearly relevant, since some of you guys complained that just because Milei is not a neo-fascist or neo-Nazi, it must automatically mean he does not fit far-right politics (yet libertarian socialists and anarchists also would not fit the far-left if one were to include Stalinists); he does, more specifically its subset of the radical-right that is routinely used by scholars to group. According to reliable sources, including several political scientists, Milei fits the far-right label within this radical-right populist context. Davide King (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
No, it isn't. That's just a WP:WHATABOUTX argument. Cambalachero (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Then answer on the merit, you did not reply to all the other things, namely that reliable sources using the far-right label are clearly using it to mean that Milei is placed within the context of radical right-wing populist politics. The radical-right is still part of the far right. Davide King (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
You keep saying "reliable sources say...", "reliable sources say...". Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Academic consensus. If "reliable sources say" something as a whole, if there is some consensus over something, we need tertiary sources that make that specific claim, and let me quote: "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.". Add to that that, as I said earlier, those sources are not even actually making a claim, but just using a disposable adjective. Good referencing is not only about using sources that are reliable, but also reporting what they say, without making it seem as if they make claims they don't actually do. See WP:SYNTH. Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
We are not saying there's a unanimous consensus for a single label. We're listing, in the lead, the ways he has been described by many reliable sources, without claiming any specific one is a consensus. In this case, simply giving these sources should be enough, as some reliable sources describe him as far-right, in the same way some reliable sources describe him as minarchist/etc.
"Reliable sources say", in this topic, doesn't mean "every single reliable source says that", it just means "there are reliable sources that say that, and we should mention they said it". ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Except we are not saying there is academic consensus that he is far right, we are not even stating anything as fact, we are simply reporting that he has been described as such, and since that has been widely reported, from his August 2023 primaries win to his November 2023 and still used today, it is due. So I do not understand your point, except that you are moving the goalposts. Of course, I wold love if this article was full of academic sources rather than news sources but that is the best we have. Also there are political scientists explicitly putting him within the global far-right context, there are some who disagree with his comparisons with Trump but that does not negate the point.
And even those who found ultraliberal a better than fit than far-right still say "he combines that hyperliberal ideology and freedom with elements of the extreme-right." We are not required to have academic consensus for us stating that he has been described (by reliable sources who have consulted several experts) as far right. That is all we are saying.
Davide King (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a larger consensus for the "right wing" such as "right wing libertarian" descriptor than for "far-right", thankfully, that much isn't in dispute. So I see that descriptor as being entirely adequate as far as the sources now stand reflect, especially in regard to the lead section. As written was already a battle to come to the current wording. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
That is not even true. Look at this "Libertarianism" section for those who say Milei's social views do not qualify him as libertarian. Should we remove that too since sources disagree about him being a libertarian? That is how absurd the argument against far-right in the lead is. Davide King (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The section you cited to is also not a lead section.. that is the crux of the discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
And? What does this have to do to with it? Additionally, one could argue that the sources using the "far-right" labels are disputing "libertarian", yet you support having that in the lead but not "far-right populist"? If we have one, we should have the other. Davide King (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It has to do with the WP:UNDUE aspect of the discussion. Something might be stated even by a handful of reliable sources, but it is not sufficient to put in the lead since it is clearly highly contentious and therefore would be giving the term massively undue weight in the lead. The other terms have not gotten the same level of debate, though I suppose you are welcome to start such discussions. Wikipedia is a work in progress of course, so this is just the best we can as a community of editors. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Highly contentious would be stating as a fact that "Javier Milei ... is a far-right politician." Merely stating as a summary in the lead that, among the other labels, "far-right" or "far-right populist" were one of the siginficant labels used to describe him is not. Indeed, the WP:NPOV violation would be not having it in the lead, since it has been one of the "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic [in this case, Milei's politics]".
Davide King (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, this is more than a handful, there is a number of sources describing him as such. If there are also sources explicitly disagreeing, you could mention that it has been debated/contested by others, but it is not WP:UNDUE to mention that he has been described as such by some sources.
The fact that something is asserted by enough RS but debated by others doesn't mean we don't put it in the lead anymore, we mention both. Otherwise, we'd be hiding the whole debate. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Look at National Rally for an actual example of a group that is described as far-right in a manner that I do not think is in dispute. Also, lead sections do not need to include every aspect of debate about everything included in the body, that would make them all very long or would give undue weight to things that might not be encyclopedic in the consensus formed around them (more the latter in this case). Here is also a helpful article for those that might still be confused about the "far-right" descriptor being used in the case of Milei. For what it is worth, Milei himself would not even self-describe as "right-wing" let alone "far-right", but obviously people do not get to write their own WP articles and dictate how others describe them. That much, is up to us forming WP:Consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It is funny you mentioned National Rally, since Milei was compared to Marine Le Pen. Also, Wikipedia is based around independent secondary reliable sources. We may say that Milei does not consider himself right-wing but that should not stop us from reporting what a significant number of reliable sources said about Milei, namely putting him within the context of the global far-right, which is understood to mean radical-right populists, not neo-Nazis. Davide King (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually, that is exactly how it would be misconstrued, which is part of the danger here, "Neo-Nazism is considered a particular form of far-right politics and right-wing extremism.", at least that is according to the wikipedia article and the given source[6] Though admittedly, that source is hard to actually retrieve/verify. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure I get what you are saying but that seems to confirm what I have been saying the whole time? Namely that neo-Nazism is a particular form of far-right politics and right-wing extremism, and not the sole definition of the far right. Thus, concerns that far-right must automatically equates with neo-Nazism and not other radical-right politics are unwarranted. Davide King (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, the difference is that the National Rally is described as "far-right" in the article, while we don't suggest to do the same for Milei - only to mention that some sources describe him as such, among other labels. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/inside-the-americas/20231116-argentina-presidential-election-far-right-milei-and-peronist-massa-race-neck-and-neck
  2. ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/argentina-sergio-concede-massa-javier-milei_n_655a9daee4b0998d69a0a60c
  3. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/19/world/argentina-vote-milei-massa-nov-19/index.html
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-67470549
  5. ^ https://news.yahoo.com/far-outsider-javier-milei-wins-210852000.html
  6. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/20/far-right-populist-javier-milei-becomes-argentinas-new-president
  7. ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/argentina-elects-a-far-right-chainsaw-wielding-president/
  8. ^ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/voters-in-argentina-elect-far-right-political-outsider-as-president
  9. ^ https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-11-19/argentina-holds-a-runoff-election-that-could-lead-a-trump-admiring-populist-to-the-presidency
  10. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/argentina-elects-right-wing-populist-javier-milei-as-president-13012028
  11. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-15/inflation-at-100-boosts-javier-milei-in-2023-argentina-presidential-election
  12. ^ https://news.miami.edu/stories/2023/11/argentina-elects-far-right-president.html
  13. ^ https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1214279729/what-to-know-about-argentinas-eccentric-conservative-new-president-elect
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez
  15. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Tlaib
  16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Stanton
  17. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Swalwell

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

I'd like the last paragraph of the "presidency" section to be changed from (An Argentinian court halted the labour reforms which has been the part of the decree.) to (An Argentinian court halted the labour reforms which comprises part of the decree.) Du Macedo (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi - how does, "An Argentinian court halted the labor reforms that comprised part of the decree" sound? Staraction (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Javier_Milei/Archive_3&oldid=1256699171"