This is an archive of past discussions about Javier Milei. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RfC: Should the lead include "far-right" among the labels used to describe Milei's politics?
Should the lead of Javier Milei include "far-right", as in "far-right populist" (other wording is also welcome), among the labels used to describe Milei's politics? This RfC is not about the first sentence of the lead, it is about the paragraph of the lead that mentions how Milei has been described, that is where this would be added. Davide King (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Survey
(Note: RFC Submitter) Yes. It is not contentious when such a big number of reliable sources, including conservative-leaning ones like The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal, have routinely used it to describe Milei's politics from his rise in August 2023 to his presidency win in November 2023. For a list of reliable sources using the label, see "Election news coverage". For the views of political scientists quoted in reliable sources, see "Academic analysis". Not having it in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV, which means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". As someone who has followed the campaign and the election, I can attest that this is indeed one of the significant views. Claims of it being contentious, questioning those reliable sources (for example, "they do not explain why!" They actually do. Or that "it implies he is a Nazi!" No, they clearly place him within the context of radical-right populism, it is perfectly clear why they call him a far-right populist), or not understanding that we will not be stating anything as fact but just that he as been described as "far-right populist" reek of "I don't like it". Also stating there are sources claiming he will moderate in office reeks of WP:CRYSTAL and still do not negate the fact that reliable sources consistenly or in significant numbers used the far-right label. Davide King (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [EtA] See also this comment. Davide King (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
No because "right-wing populist" is sufficient, the sources in that section lower in the article seem a bit cherry-picked, and they're not consistent anyway: "a far-right populist, far-right outsider, far-right libertarian, libertarian populist, ultraright, ultraliberal, far-right or radical right", plus Milei's preferred "anarcho-capitalist" which is also strongly reported in sources. It's not possible to be both far-right and an ultraliberal (even for bordering-on-obsolescent definitions of liberal), and it is arguable that "far-right libertarian" is itself an oxymoron, because far-rightism is not characterized solely by stances on social issues but also by authoritarianism. "Far-right" is similarly in direct logical conflict with "anarcho-" anything. The issue here is that Milei is far-right, least as Americans would see it, on particular issues (abortion and guns and immigration), but progressive-leaning on others (notably legalization of recreational drugs and of sex-work, while at least being middle-of-the-road on LGBT issues), and is at least ostensibly a libertarian, interested in shrinking government and in being non-authoritarian.Much of the confusion here and in the press is resulting from trying to put everything on a left–right axis when this is not actually rationally possible, because politics is at least a two-axis model, and I've seen more convincing ones with three axes. Another source of confusion is that the US and arguably the UK don't actually have a left wing at all. Actual communists and hard-left socialists who are communists in all but their chosen label have near-zero influence in these countries, so our idea of "left-wing" is what most of the rest of the world would consider centrist. But Milei's ant-left stances are literally against communists, not against things like the US Democractic Party which is what passes for "left" over here but is not left by any broader definition. That said, Milei does oppose some things supported by the Western so-called-left, like abortion rights. Basically, "it's complicated".In short, labeling him "far-right" in the lead would be a severe and misleading over-generalization, and which only agrees with some of the rather selective and simplistic sources. It would be a thought-terminating cliché, and inasmuch as it would steer the average reader into assuming that Milei is roughly in the same camp as Trump and Putin, that would really be a form of WP:OR plus the WP:POV issue of siding with the most extreme labeling of him by those who are socio-politically opposed to him. I find this guy noxious, but I don't want to see him inappropriately tarred and feathered in our material. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 12:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
No, per SMcCandlish, and reasons I explained in earlier threads. In fact, we should try to avoid all labels and use instead the factual info they are meant to convey. Cambalachero (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
No, per SMcCandlish and I agree with Cambalachero. These labels can become especially confusing in countries outside the USA where the political systems are completely different. Nemov (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, according to how RS designate him. If sources give him the "far-right" label, among others, we should report on what the sources say, without necessarily presenting it as a fact. Sources indeed use many labels to designate him, and we shouldn't cherry-pick which get to be included based on personal preferences. Either we add all of those present in enough sources (including "far-right"), or we don't add any and we only say that his politics have been variously characterized in media (with potentially a link to the section on his political views). In this way, I'd be okay with Cambalachero's proposal of avoiding any labels, over picking-and-choosing which ones to keep. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)15:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
No, per SMcCandlish. The urge for editors to insert the current American political spectrum into every international issue is obnoxious and misleading. "Anarcho-capitalist" and "minarchist" is clear. "Far-right" is amorphous. Given the option, why wouldn't we use more specific terminology if it is available to us? What's the difference between "far-right populist" and "right-wing populist"? This is an obvious choice. KlayCax (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
No, per SMcCandlish, KlayCax, Nemov, etc. There are hundreds of articles and publications asserting Milei's political associations without any consistency; furthermore, there just aren't enough independent articles that aren't WP:RSOPINION pieces to support including "far-right" (anything) anywhere close to the lead, let alone most of the other labels that are in use. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there are abundant and numerous reliable sources that have described Javier Milei as an far-right politician.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Omitting information supported by numerous reliable sources, just because it seems controversial to some, is clearly against Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules says that as long as the information is supported by reliable sources, that information can be in the article. There are no valid reasons not to mention the far-right description.
Leaning yes. Many sources have described him as "far-right". The proposal is to show how he is being viewed, not saying as a fact that he is far-right. Senorangel (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
No. As per Wikipedia's policy, all content must be written from a neutral point of view[15]. Political labels have an editorial bias. Sources that describe his politics as alt-right are not without bias just because they are deemed an acceptable source. To maintain NPOV, it is best to avoid the label as a description. Put forth any pertinent statements made by him and allow the reader to come to that conclusion. Of course, it is within the NPOV standard to use that label when quoting/citing a source that uses that label. But as the voice of Wikipedia, neutrality is key. Sergeant Curious (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes the proposal is how Milei has been described, and there are plenty of references in Argentine and international press with a wide spectrum of political views. The proposal is not about what he is, nor how he perceives himself, nor how Wikipedians perceive him, nor a debate whether the newspapers listed as reliable in WP:RSP are correct on their assertions or not. It is not even a discussion on whether he follows the populist tactics that Murray Rothbard advocated. What we should be discussing is how to write the sentence to ensure it is balanced as required by WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Günther Frager (talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, because the most sources say so as seen in the section. Not on personal feeling one way about what is "neutral", of their own view point of what ideologies are supposed to be, or what is contradictory or not in their own subjective ways or their apparent illusions of cultural relativism.
As examples, a person may point at the former South American military dictatorships which were characterized by heavy economic liberalization and this legacy is an integral part of the South America far right. The policies, position and rhetoric of the old inherited and glorified by the new in South America just in the way Milei glorifies el Proceso. And a person may percieve "libertarianism" to be a contradiction with "far right" but others will disagree, such as academics who have studied the relation between what's classified as libertarian movements and far right populism.
Instead all that is distracting debate, the text in article must be on the basis of rules that says text must be determined by references and the balance between references is neutrality of the rules. And they support "far right populist". Braxmate (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
No, not unless we also want to use Wikivoice to describe him as ultraliberal in the lede. It is right and proper that we mention the multitudinous political labels that have been attributed to Milei, as we do later on in the article, but we don't need to list every single label that has ever been used to describe him in the lede. Also, as others have pointed out above, though Milei has been described with many different labels (some mutually exclusive with one another), not all of them are necessarily spot on, given Milei's unique suite of political positions. Joe (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes I've only really seen him described as far-right (or occasionally far-right libertarian) in a diverse range of English media. It's not a violation of NPOV to state otherwise. SportingFlyerT·C19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
No for many reasons, not the least of which in that this would violate WP:DUE by giving a deeply contentious label (according to differing sources) undue weight in the lead. The lead as it is currently written was already tortured in coming to consensus, and inserting a marginalizing term such as "far-right" when inappropriate would violate this policy and would be inserting a strong degree of synthesis. I say the lead is well worded as of this writing now, and should not be further changed without a hefty consensus.Iljhgtn (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
No A description of a public figure's politics that comes from any non-academic publication should always be viewed with suspicion. Doubly so if the publication also has different politics. Using a description like that as part of the lead in that person's bio is naive at best. There's a reason the page for Socialism doesn't contain a quote describing it from the Financial Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.155.84 (talk)
Radical-right populist is a label routinely used by scholars to describe far-right parties that do not oppose democracy (e.g. Vox, whose leader praised Milei, was at his inauguration, and reliable sources said Milei took his anti-caste rhetoric from them). It is not ambiguous at all. Also Wikipedia is based around independent secondary reliable sources, so they get more weight over primary, auto-referencial ones. And I do not understand why SMcCandlish mentioned Putin and not, for example, Bolsonaro, another far-rightist who Milei has actually been compared to. In fact, he has been widely compared to Trump, although there is some disagreement, which SMcCandlish would know if they had actually read what I linked them to. Davide King (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
"I do not understand why SMcCandlish mentioned Putin and not, for example, Bolsonaro" – Maybe because I'm not under any obligation to provide a complete list of every single notable person every labeled by someone with such terms? I really have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here, but me not using an example you happen to like is not any kind of failure on my part. "he has been widely compared to Trump, although there is some disagreement" - Yes, exactly. Trying to make our lead steer the reader into equating Milei's positions and approaches to those of someone like Trump, as if it were a universally agreed fact when in fact it's a contentious label/assertion in the sources themselves, is a form of original research combined with a PoV. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I just did not understand why you mentioned Putin since the article does not mention him at all. And this RfC is not about comparisons with Trump, it is about reporting a label that has been widely cited by reliable sources, whatever you think of them or their writers. Thankfully, Wikipedia is based around independent secondary sources, not what random Wikipedia users think of them. Since we are not stating anything as fact, the contentious claim is not a good argument. You should argue that it is undue because it not true that a significant number of reliable sources used that label, or that the sources used in support are not reliable sources or are op-eds, except all of them are news articles and come from reliable ones. Arguing that you think the writer is being sloppy, etc. is not really a good argument and the closure should not take it seriously. Davide King (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This ad hominem tatic is bullshitty and uncivil and needs to stop. Cf. also "your comment reeks of a lack of understanding of far-right politics" and "which SMcCandlish would know if they had actually read what I [like better]" Just make your arguments without casting aspersions at people who disagree with you. I was professional activist for much of my adult life, and trying to insinuate that I'm a cluebag with no familiarity with the subject just because I'm not towing your line is ridiculous and insulting. You have no idea of the background of any other editor here and what their professional-level experience and understanding of a topic are, and trying to read their minds and paint a dismissive portrait of them based on how well they align with your perceptions and preferences is extremely foolhardy. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Noted and accepted. For my part, I'm attempting to just address the arguments you are providing (and largely on a policy basis). For all I know you're poli-sci professor who is a subject-matter expert on Argentine politics; I have no way of knowing. I can just respond to whether the revision proposal and the rationales for it align with what the preponderance of the sources are saying (which seem to favor right-wing and populist at least but not such much far-right, even if the label is attested). And then after that, there's the concern of whether using the far-right term has PoV and clarity/implication issues; just because a term could be used does not mean that it must be, unless it is used nearly universally for the subject, in which case our hand it kind of forced. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, really sorry if I came accross that way. I think that "far-right" not always has POV or clarity/implication issues if a significant number of reliable sources have used it and discussed it, to me that makes it due on par with "right-wing" and "populist", perhaps not exactly on par but enough to be mentioned alongside. For example, what do you think are the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues of my analysis? As I said, I followed the campaign, so I did not feel like I cherry picked, I really tried to put any of the significant labels used to describe his politics. The only cherry-picking I plead guilty of is the exclusive use of reliable sources. :) Of course, they were news sources, and I agree that academic books would be the best sources. Unfortunately, I found what I could. But in these news sources several experts were quoted, and they used the "far-right" label and put in the context I explained you, e.g. radical-right populism, a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. There was some disagreement, for example for his comparisons to Trump, but I do not think that by itself negates the label, since we are not stating it as fact. Davide King (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
More substantively: The mistake here (in "independent secondary reliable sources ... get more weight", a correct principle but being badly misapplied here), is believing that newspapers and other commentary from non-experts are reliable sources for the meanings of political-science terminology, when we all know that these terms are very often misapplied in such material. A reliable source for one thing (e.g. factual reporting of what happened at an event or what someone said) are not magically reliable sources for all things, especially not things that involve a lot of nuance within a professional sphere. I've covered this problem in detail, especially as it pertains to terminological disputes, as it relates to WP:UNDUE deference to tertiary sources, at Wikipedia:Tertiary-source fallacy, but the same principles apply also to misuse of weak secondary sources for the same purpose. And newspapers, like monographs (which is what most of the books you've cited are), and op-eds, and organizational position statements, and other materials that are not simply applying WP:AEIS to previously published primary material, are themselves actually primary sources, for the opinion of the writer. These labels are in most cases opinions, and they frequently conflict with each other about Milei. What we should be doing here is having a section on these opinions (from notable and relevant sources), and in the lead concisely summarizing these divergent views, not choosing the view we like better then sticking it onto Milei as if it is an objectively factual label that nearly all the sources agree on. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
There are experts who agree with that label, and we are not saying there is any consensus on the perfect label. We are just listing a range of significant labels used to describe him. It would be perfect if we could reach this same point using proper prose rather than labels. What wording do you suggest to describe his politics? Davide King (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough that "There are experts who agree with that label". As I said to someoen else below, with our material reading "He has been described politically as a right-wing libertarian and right-wing populist, and supports [positions]...", it is not actually "listing a range of signficant labels used to describe him", and that's central to this discussion, I think. The lead is instead concisely summarizing the source-consensus view about Milei, without veering into "outside edge" terms used either by some of his boosters or some of his detractors. It would be possible to write a lead that covered a broader range of this labeling, but that's not what we have now and it's often not advisable. It tends to lead the reader to simply assume that no one really agrees how to describe the subject. But in reality, there is usually a source-consensus view that can be summarized, and we shouldn't deny it to the reader. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I can see you point. Ultimately, tt is not a big deal to me, even though I may have given the impression that it was. I can agree with you that the current wording is fine, and I appreciate that. I just think the "far-right" or "far-right populist" can be argued to be due and find its way in a contextualized and concise sentence (rather than just a label; on this I agree with you and it should be a summary-consensus rather than labels listing) like that but I am not going to war over this. Davide King (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Populist seems to have a pretty clear definition in typical usage, actually, just with a divergent and arguably obsolescent definition used historically in American social science, which is clearly not the meaning it has in material like Javier Milei. Contrast this with "far-left", where our lead accurately captures the very messy ambiguity of this term, even within the same area of discourse. "Far-right" has precisely the same problem, but our lead there does not address this and needs to be rewritten. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Why do you mention "Populism" when it is "Right-wing populism" that we are discussing? Radical-right populist is a label routinely used by scholars to describe far-right parties or politicians that do not oppose democracy. That is the same context reliable sources use it when referring to Milei as "far-right" or "far-right populist", certainly not neo-Nazism. Unlike the far-left, there is an Hanbook for the Far-Right, and Milei fits the "reactionary" and "radical-right populism" of far-right politics, which is not limited to neo-Nazism or neo-fascism if you think that is the issue. Again, if the issue is us linking to "Far-right politics", "far-right populist" redirects to "Right-wing populism". Several forms of right-wing populism are considered radical-right, which is a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. I am not saying that Milei is a far-right populist. I am saying that is how and why reliable sources described him as such and in which context. Cherry-picking which labels to include (e.g. only those that are auto-referencial like anarcho-capitalism or libertarian, as Milei describes himself) but excluding a label that has been significantly used not only by reliable sources but also by political scientists and academics is beyond me and reeks of "I don't like it". Davide King (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, it is not clear what point you are trying to make, and you just appear to be "trashing", arguing every possible point just to have an argument because you're unhappy someone disagreed with you on this revision proposal. I supported your position that "populism" was not ill-defined, and now you're railing at me for "failing" to link to Right-wing populism more specifically, when that is even less ill-defined than bare "populism". I'm left with basically a "WTF?" reaction at this point. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
If you feel like I am "trashing" you, that is clearly not my intention and there may be misunderstanding, so I apologize for that. I just think that "populism" is more ambiguous and "radical-right populism" is a clearer label used by scholars in reference to a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. Davide King (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
As for the claim that "much of the confusion here and in the press is resulting from trying to put everything on a left–right axis when this is not actually rationally possible", I will quote what Chaotic Enby so concisely said: "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." As for the claim that "politics is at least a two-axis model, and I've seen more convincing ones with three axes", indeed that is why there should be no surprise in seeing radical-right-wing libertarianism being considered far-right; it would be in the more libertarian side of a multi-axis political spectrum but far-right nonetheless. And that is why reliable sources use the far-right libertarian label. Davide King (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
But all that leads us to an earlier thread: according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Academic consensus: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Just gathering a number of sources that use a label and taking conclusions from it is WP:SYNTH. Cambalachero (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
But we are not stating that there is consensus among scholars, we are not stating anything as fact. We would just state that he has been described as far-right. Since SMcCandlish complained of "sloppy writers", I noted that there are political scientists that support the label, are they all sloppy too? Nowhere does this means there is an academic consensus. It just shows that this is a significant label and that he has been described as such. Nothing more, nothing less. Davide King (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
That's why the policy page says "all or most scientists or scholars". A partial consensus requires explicit referencing as much as a complete consensus. Cambalachero (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I still do not understand what is your argument. We cannot say he has been described as a "far-right populist" because you say there is not academic consensus? Even though we would just be saying he has been described as "far-right populist" by a wide range of international reliable sources? Davide King (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
it's quite simple. Let's say you want to add to a BLP that the subject "has been described as a far-right populist by a wide range of international reliable sources". You'll need to reference that... but not with many references that just say "that man is a far-right populist". You need a source that actually says that the man "has been described as a far-right populist by a wide range of international reliable sources". Cambalachero (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I got it now. But that is not what I support. I support either mentioning "far-right", which in my way has been a significant view by reliable sources, or "far-right populist". Nothing more, nothing less, so in my opinion the argument that we need "a source that actually says that the man 'has been described as a far-right populist by a wide range of international reliable sources'" (indeed, in such case we would need that, and I agree with you) does not apply in this case. Davide King (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem with that is that when you say that calling Milei far-right "has been a significant view by reliable sources", who says that it was a significant view? You? The policy about academic consensus (total or partial) is not just for saying that there is such consensus, but also for deciding that there is such a thing and acting in consequence. Unless we have such a reference, all the sources that call Milei far-right do so specifically, and we are not allowed to make any generalized conclusions. Cambalachero (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
That would apply to the other label, such as right-wing libertarian, as there have been those questioning his libertarian credentials. Also I think you are too dismissive towards news source when those are the best sources we have now. We can just reword it to say: "Some observers also described him as part of the global populist far-right". There are other ways where we can mention the significance of reliable sources describing his politics as far-right populist. When even The Daily Telegraph ("hard-right") and The Wall Street Journal ("far-right outsider") used the label, it is significant and cannot be dismissed as "left-wing bias". Davide King (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in the grand scheme, a handful of sources and articles labeling him "far-right" just don't have enough weight for inclusion in the lead. Despite how strongly the editors of those publications feel about him, the editors here have to find consensus that it's "widely used" per MOS:LABEL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
You got things reversed. The handful articles are the one describe him as a "minarchist" or "anarcho-capitalist". Majority of reliable sources are using the "far-right" in some form or another. Check the "Sources" discussion. Davide King (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Why, yes, "Reliable Sources" is a content guideline and it always applies. Perhaps you are getting confused by discussing with so many people at once, I'm the one who proposed to just do without all labels, not just the far-right one, and focus instead on the things Milei has actually done. Cambalachero (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. There are users who say it is not widely used, and those who do not dispute that but prefer to go another route, like this one, which is certainly interesting and a possibility. Do you feel the current lead already does that job good enough? Do you have any proposed wording for it? I am curious about what you would change. Davide King (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish It would be a thought-terminating cliché to only label him as far-right, but that is not at all what is proposed, which is to add it to the list of labels currently present. With the context of the other labels like "right-wing libertarian", there wouldn't be any risk of confusing him with Trump or Putin. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)15:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, and if the material were kind of a laundry list of such terms, and what camps they were coming from, I could go along with that. But the material is "He has been described politically as a right-wing libertarian and right-wing populist, and supports [positions]...". The proposal above is to change an occurrence of "right-wing" to "far-right" or otherwise inject the latter into the construction, but this does not seem justifiable with the sources, while "right-wing" and "populist" clearly are. (There may be some doubt about "libertarian", which seems primarily a self-label, and a term used by independent sources earlier on but less so later, the more polical power he has gained, i.e. the more authority.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
My very detailed reply to Davide King's OP; collapsing it so it doesn't fill up the screen for everyone.
This is going to be very long because of the number of unsupportable assumptions in the OP. "Right-wing libertarianism has been considered part of, or compared to, radical-right populism.": That's kind of a nonsensical statement; these categories are not comparable nor one a subset of the other. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, based on notions of small government, personal responsibility, capitalism, and freedom from authoritarian oppression. Populism is a socio-political rhetorical approach, that uses messages of antiestablishmentarianism, especially to appeal to sentiments of the common people against an "elite" of current or traditional political authority. It is certainly possible for both of these dissimilar things to intersect also with right-wing values, but that does not make them logically confusable with each other much less one a category of the other. It's rather like saying "progressivism has been considered part of or compared to demagoguery", or "anarcho-syndicalism has been considered part of or compared to jingoism". It's confusion of one class of things, political philosophies, with another unrelated class of things, approaches to or argumentation types for appealing to a public base that are used in politics but which span political philosophies. That some journalists with no background in political science confuse these notions is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to do so; we have a duty to do a much better job, and newspapers are not reliable sources for the meanings of such nuanced terms or their actual applicabliity to particular living persons.
The fact that the phrase "far-right libertarian" has been attested does not make it actually sensible; similarly, the use of the verging-on-senseless phases like "fascist leftists", "left-wing fascism", etc. by right-wing "news" sources about their ideological enemies doesn't make them encyclopedically meaningful. It's misuse of "fascist" as a vague bogeyman word implying "imposing rules I don't like", in pretty much exactly the same way that the more left-leaning American press misuse "far-right" as a bogeyman term implying "opposed to many positions supported by progressives". In neither of these cases is the usage encyclopedic, because it is ignoring the general-consensus definitions and usage of these terms in high-quality political science sources, and applying them in an argument to emotion manner in very vauge and confused senses, the ones misunderstood and misused by people with no background in the subject. It is not possible for the left or a faction thereof to be "fascist" because it is a right-wing ideology by definition (despite hypothesizing by Mussolini and his ghost-writer Gentile that a centrist form could exist; one has never materialised, just as non-dictatorial communism is theoretical but has never existed). [Aside: The label "fascist left" has occasionally been confusingly used in historical reference to a specific Italian fascist faction; the term was applied because the faction supported national syndicalism as a means of addressing class disparity, but national syndicalism is by definition a right-wing adaptation of certain aspects of left syndicalism, thus "fascist left" even in this disused academic sense is a misnomer, and it is completely unrelated to blowhard "fascist leftists" labeling by modern right-wingers.] Likewise, libertarianism is by definition anti-authoritarian (it's the kingpin of that entire political philosophy), while the far-right are by definition authoritarian.
What's happened here is that a lot of sloppy writers use "far-right" to mean "strongly convervative on a social-issues axis, on the opposite side of progressivism", but that is not what the word properly means and not how it is used in high-quality sources. Far-right is the combination of those values with authoritarianism and nationalism (usually with some additional factors like racial and religious supremacy notions). So, "far-right libertarian" is simply an oxymoron, as it resolves to "authoritarian anti-authoritarian". There are certainly socially convervative libertarians (e.g. anti-abortion, anti-immigration, sometimes anti-LGBT+ due to following fringe "science" claims (overview), often subvertly racist for the same reason ((ex.), and generally opposed to governmental welfare programs, and supportive of deregulation of industry across the board). This is really what people mean when they say "right-wing libertarian", which is a rather confused term, while "far-right libertarian" is just downright self-contradictory. By the same token, there are "left libertarians" or even "libertarian socialists", antiauthoritarians more on-board with progressive stances on many issues, but there is no such thing as a "far-left libertarian" because the far left (communism and its offshoots) are also authoritarian. The "far-" prefix in these terms basically resolves to "authoritarian version of". That said, "far-left" has been seeing meaning drift in punditry, as a pejorative label, just as "far-right" has; for once, our own on article on the subject, at far-left politics, actually captures this usage ambiguity problem right in the lead section.
"do not see him so simplistically as 'non-authoritarian'": I said "ostensibly" for a reason. It generally is not possible for someone to actually stick to libertarian principles yet also gain and wield any political power, which by its nature is authoritarian. It is likely that Milei began as a dyed-in-the-wool liberartian then has pragmatically shifted away from it; but asserting this without a great deal of quality sourcing would be WP:OR. That sourcing might exist, and if it does it would demonstrate further that "far-right libertarian" is a silly misnomer, for an additional reason. But having allegedly shifted from anti-authoritarian to centrist on that axis or even a bit authoritarian would not make him "far-right", which is overwhelmingly authoritarian. Side point: the anarch[o]- in anarcho-capitalism does not have the same meaning as in anarchism on the left. The latter is anti-statist but also anti-capitalist and entirely rooted in the Marxist labor theory of value, while the former is by definition pro-capitalism and rejects Marxist theory; the only thing they have in common is anti-statism, and the anarch- in the latter means freedom from the state and from all other systems of authority, especially those that create and enforce class distinctions, while anarcho- in the former means only freedom from regulation by nation-states and replacement of it by industrial self-regulation (private-sector authority which would perpetuate and strengthen class distinction). They're both daft, but for largely unrelated reasons. But more importantly "far-right anarcho-capitalist" is yet another confused misnomer, because far-right by definition is nationalist (promotional and defensive of a nation-state and of the state being cotextensive with the nation) while anarch[o]- anything is by defintion against the state existing at all.
"have you actually checked 'Academic analysis' and 'Election news coverage'?": Wikipedia's own article sections are not sources, and probable cherry picking in one is not disproved by probable cherry picking in others.
"Finally, I support simply changing 'right-wing populism' to 'far-right populism' or even 'radical-right populism', not to 'far-right'": Well, I don't support any such changes because it's all WP:OR and a seriouis WP:WTW problem; it's a synthesis of sources that largely are not reliable on the nuances of such terminology, to arrive at a simplistic and for many emotive label to stick on the subject, a label that at very best is ambiguous and confusion and at worst outright misleading. (PS: "radical-right" is ambiguous, and primarily refers to two distinct political stances in the US and Europe, nothing to do with Argentina and Milei; to the extent it's sometimes used as a hand-wavy synonym of "far-right", it's worse than the latter, since it has all the conceptual problems of the latter plus the ambiguity problem. Trying to imply a specific meaning with it to our readers is yet more OR.)
I am not going to respond to every point you raised because it would never end, but these should be the main points.
Why do you mention Libertarianism when I clearly discussed Right-wing libertarianism? It is the latter that has been compared to right-wing populism. Indeed, paleolibertarianism, of which Milei describes himself as a follower, is a strategy first developed by Rothbard to ally his politics with radical right-wing populism. "Far-right libertarian" is clearly referring to a radical-right version of right-wing-libertarianism, not libvertarianism as a whole (it is not saying that libertarianism is far-right, that would be absurd), which in fact includes left-wing libertarianism, and which was the origin of it.
And you keep saying that is an oxymoron, but I presented you three books published by the academic press that take the label seriously and describe it, so much for you claim of "the number of unsupportable assumptions in the OP". So please, avoid expressing your personal views of what is and not an oxymoron, use reliable sources like I did.
"Wikipedia's own article sections are not sources", indeed but the sources presented there certainly are. I linked you there simply to avoid having to list every single reference here, too. That you think they are cherry-picked, even though they present a wide range of labels, is your personal opinion. "What's happened here is that a lot of sloppy writers use 'far-right' to mean 'strongly convervative on a social-issues axis, on the opposite side of progressivism'", that looks like your own personal view. Wikipedia is based around independent secondary, not what one user thinks.
This is the third time you've tried this "why aren't you writing the way I want to you write and linking to what I want to link to?" tactic, and it's not useful. There is no problem in writing about libertarianism in general and then more specifically about conservative and right-wing leaning libertarians, as I did in some detail, without happening to include a wikilink to the article Right-wing libertarianism. It is not a "failure" on the part of me or the argument I presented, it's simply not spamming wikilinks into every spot one could be spammed. The fact that you just love inject either "radical" or "far-" into every mention of "right-wing" does not make it encyclopedically appropriate for how to write about this or other subjects. No one here needs a run-down on every known variant of libertarianism, and it's entirely unclear why you are trying to provide one, other than perhaps as a hand-wave. As for your sources: please quote them using and defining the term "far-right libertarian" (notice that is a red link). If they do at all, we'll see whether what they say has any support in other material rather than being a disused neologistic coinage with logic problems. And, no, libertarianism (as that term is used today) did not have a left-wing origin. It was rooted firmly in classical liberalism, which is not leftist by any means. As a term, it had been used earlier by some communiststs, but with a very different meaning. This is yet another case of terminological ambiguity that you are glossing over. Finally, every discussion like this on talk pages is an expression of views of editors (hopefully informed ones); they're talk pages, not articles. Trying to bible-thump three soures you like as if they magically outweigh everything else, to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you on a variety of principles (like OR policy on how sources are used, V and R on what a source is reliable for, and V and NPOV and OR together on what we can derive from a preponderance of sources on a topic) is not constructive or an aid to consensus formation. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, I am really sorry about that. I wrote that part before you warned how I was coming off to you. It was not my intention and I apologize, truly. As for libertarian, I am European so I understand it the old-fashioned way still. :) I hope we can discuss the other issues above, while here I will mainly address your comments about my "radical right" usage. You wrote: "The fact that you just love inject either 'radical' or 'far-' into every mention of 'right-wing' does not make it encyclopedically appropriate for how to write about this or other subjects." We are discussing whether "far-right" should be in the lead of this article, that is the only reason why I do that, and I hope you did not take that to mean I personally see Milei only as far right.
Also I am using these words because that is what I think reliable sources mean when they say "far-right" or "far-right populist". They obviously do not mean to say Milei is a neo-Nazi by "far-right". Of course, I could be wrong but my understanding reading them and the way the label is used in context, they are using it the same way scholars describe far-right parties (e.g. AfD, Vox) as "radical-right populist", which is a label used to describe such parties (indeed, "radical right" would be the more accurate label to describe but I suppose sources use "far-right" because it is more known and to the point). In this context, "radical-right" is a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. I hope this cleared things up and I did not come off badly again.
P.S. Honestly, despite everything, this was a really interesting discussion and I would love to have a politics discussion with you in private, I think that would be very interesting and stimulating. :-) Davide King (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@KlayCax, could you please clarify what is "the current American political spectrum into every international issue is obnoxious and misleading"? International sources from Argentina to Spain and other European countries used the "far-right/ultra-right" or "far-right populist" label. So what does that have to do with American politics? Davide King (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Kcmastrpc, could you please explain which are these op-ed articles used in support of the far-right label? Unless I missed anything, I am pretty sure I used only "Analysis/News" articles, no op-eds. In fact, the reverse is true: op-eds are some that dispute the far-right label but they are WP:OPINION, while straight news articles are the ones using the far-right label. Davide King (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sergeant Curious, why do you mention "alt-tight", was that just a mistake and you meant to say "far-right"? "Far-right" is the label being discussed, not "alt-right". Also we would not be stating this in wikivoice, just that he has been described as such (by a wide range of reliable sources across the globe), whether we like it or not. Davide King (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway, could you please tell us how you suggest we write the lead paragraph related to Milei's politics without using any label (that would include right-wing libertarian, right-wing populist, anarcho-capitalist, minarchist, etc.). We also do not dismiss labels just because we think they are contentious. We must follow WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Davide King (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
The trend I am seeing in several RfCs is that a "label" is being labeled as being undesirable and contentious. Best practice is just stick to straight reporting and describe him as a member of the Libertarian party. Hope this helps.
Unless reliable sources see these labels as contentious, for example attributing them (e.g. "Milei is perceived [by some or similar wording] to be a far-right populist", but they say "Milei, a far-right populist"), these remain personal opinions, which can be respected but are not grounded in our policy and guidelines to me. Describing him as a member of the Libertarian Party is so simplicistly as to mean nothing and clearly not how reliable sources have covered him... Thus failing WP:BALANCE. I appreciate your response though. Davide King (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@MaximusEditor, as I asked to Sergeant Curious, could you please eleborate on your comment? WP:NPOV does not mean "neutrality" in the way it is commonly understood but it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Dismissing the far-right label, which was one of the significant views published by reliable sources on the topic of Milei's politics, is in fact the NPOV violation. I am asking you because "this is not a vote", it should be based on rational arguments and Wikipedia policy and guidlines. Acting as though this is a contentious label, even though it is not seen as such by a significant number of reliable sources to describe Milei, it is not a persuasive argument or one that is based on NPOV or our policies in my view. I can at least respect Cambalachero and SMcCandlish's arguments to not have any label but disagree with them on the significance of the far-right label. With comments like yours, which seem to misinterpret NPOV to mean "neutrality" (e.g. we must not say "far-right" because it is a contentious label or it makes the subject look bad). If such a significant number of international reliable sources used in straight news article's text and used it as fact, it is not contentious and can be listed alongside the other labels. But wanting some labels and not the other is a NPOV violation. If one does not want that we list any label, then they should at least propose a summary text in its place, preferably citing reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sadko, could you please clarify how the proposal is against NPOV? WP:NPOV does not mean not "neutrality" as commonly understood, it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Dismissing the far-right label, which was one of the significant views published by reliable sources on the topic of Milei's politics, is in fact the NPOV violation. There are respectful reasons to oppose any label from the lead but opposing only this one on what I think are flawed arguments (such as this misuse of NPOV in my view), that is not one of them. Davide King (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Sources
Referencing Buidhe's search on this same talk page, this is what they found:
"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.
So I did a quick search on Google Scholar, which showed this:
Of course, this may be a bit simplicistic (sources should be checked to ensure that they are generally reliable; in this case, Google Scholar should be better than Google News) but at least it shows that the "far-right" label is one of the significant views, and having one but not another, rather than having neither and use prose, is a violation of NPOV. It also shows that consensus is more complicated than assumed, and it cannot be used to keep two labels but exclude another that received even more coverage. Coverage by itself does not mean much but from a quick glances it shows that the label is discussed and taken seriously; I have found more political scientists supporting it than opposing it. Other users are free to provide equally reliable sources or explain why they should be dismissed. We should try to work together and discuss how to properly word it in the lead, rather than whether it should be. Look at Jair Bolsonaro: "A polarizing and controversial politician, Bolsonaro's views and comments, which have been described as far-right and populist, drew both praise and criticism in Brazil." We could use a similar wording when discussing the use of the "far-right" label in the lead. Davide King (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
And you are aware there are literally users who think the label has not been used very much? I already wrote that "this may be a bit simplicistic", so do not see this as an answer to your argument. Because I do not think you or SMcCandlish deny that the label has been significantly used by a good number of reliable sources, you have other reasons to oppose having "far-right" in the lead, which I respect. This was more to show users who think only op-eds or a few sources used the label, it was an answer to them more than to you. Davide King (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Searching with Google Scholar results Javier Milei: 1,020 hits (far-right represents less than 15%). Also, this is a contentious topic in a BLP and unless we can cite a significant majority of high-quality sources that are uncontroversial, we simply should not include what a bunch of newspapers decide to print to drive engagement in the Wiki lead. I've already cited policy regarding MOS:LABEL, WP:HEADLINES, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:RSOPINION and I'm through engaging in this discussion because I'm sensing WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Since when sources considered generally reliable at WP:RSP are just "a bunch of newspapers"? Also Chaotic Enby already debunked your claim regarding MOS:LABEL and WP:HEADLINES, since "far-right" will not be stated as fact and it is not used only in the headline but in the article's text. WP:RSOPINION does not apply since none of the reliable sources I am referencing to are op-eds and they actually stated it as fact (e.g. "Javier Milei, a far-right populist", although we would not be stating this in wikivoice). Davide King (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The use of any source that uses "far-right" in the headline is suspect to me; of course the source is going to reiterate that term in the main body, and thus I would not support their use given the contentious label.
Regardless of whether or not wiki-voice is used, the use of contentious labels in the lead is leaning far outside the boundaries set forth in WP:NPOV, and given that the majority of sources don't use that term, it shouldn't be in the lead (nor should the other labels), period.
WP:RSEDITORIAL states "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." So why would we put something such as this in the lead? Why is it important to the reader if it's not authorative (and isn't supported by a majority of scholarly sources)? Also, Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Political editorials are not well-known for their neutrality, especially given the findings per Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#Articles_related_to_politics.
@Kcmastrpc Dismissing any source using "far-right" in the title, and using this to argue that the sources you didn't dismiss don't call him far-right, really sounds like circular reasoning to me. Also, yes, using Wikivoice absolutely does change what is or isn't NPOV, because reporting that someone has a certain POV isn't the same as reporting this POV as fact. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I can somewhat get behind the logic that if we're not going to strike the entire sentence from the lead covering all the political labels that sources use to describe Milei, then it could stand to reason that "far-right" be included since the other labels have significantly less representation. However, that doesn't change the fact that "far-right" is extremely contentious due to it's association with Nazism. This is my main issue with it. The laisse-faire attitude behind it's ubiquitous use in modern news media doesn't mean we should be using it as well to frame the entire BLP in the opening paragraphs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Far-right politics says that neo-Nazism is considered only a particular part of far-right politics. Radical-right populism, which is what these reliable sources mean when they call Milei far right, is a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. Many people also think that fascism was left-wing or that Nazis were socialists. That does not stop us from reporting what reliable sources said and ignoring that some readers may be confused by this fact. Davide King (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely understand that "far-right" alone could be contentious for this reason. Would a reasonable compromise be to mention it along with libertarianism and other positions that could help clarify the nuance? ChaotıċEnby(t · c)15:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
We do not dismiss a whole source just because of its headline.
It cannot be considered contentious if "a significant majority of high-quality sources" (news sources are should not be dismissed when they are the best sources we have; if you have academic articles or books about Milei, you are free to provide them), also why limit that only to "far-right" when "right-wing populist" can also be contentious according to your logic? Why do you only focus on the far right? Any label can be contentious, not just that one.
For the umpteenth time, we would not be stated anything as fact, just that he has been described as such, among other labels. Why do you not apply this argument to other labels? Not all sources agree that Milei is a libertarian, populist, or whatever. That is why we are merely describing the labels that have been the most prevalant. Also there are political scientists, for example Federico Finchelstein (who the AFP describes an an Argentinian historian who studies the global far-right), who see him as far right.
While in the words of Cristóbal Rovira, a professor of political science at the Catholic University of Chile, "Milei has a libertarian component that makes him a rare creature compared to the ultra-right of Latin America", he is placed within the context of the global far right. He said: "There is a fairly global wave of the extreme right. They start in Western Europe, where the emblematic case of Jean-Marie Le Pen is in France in the 1980s, they expand to Eastern Europe and today we see that they are beginning to gain territory in other places: Trump, Bolsonaro." According to Rovira, "Milei would fit into the prototype of what these ultra-rights are." He said: "At an academic level we define them by two important criteria. First, they are to the right of the mainstream right and profess much more radical ideas. In the case of Argentina, Milei is positioned to the right of Macrismo. Second, they maintain an ambivalent relationship with the democratic system and sometimes profess authoritarian ideas. That differentiates them from the traditional right, which act within the rules of the democratic game." According to Rovira, "Milei's case fits very well into this double classification."[16]
As for your argument that "searching with Google Scholar results Javier Milei: 1,020 hits (far-right represents less than 15%)", both "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism" represent way less than that, so should we remove them? That is how absurd that argument is. And in fact we do have "a significant majority of high-quality sources" (AFP, Al Jazeera English, Associated Press, BBC, The Guardian, NPR, Reuters, and many other international news organizations that are considered generally reliable, even right-leaning reliable sources like The Daily Teleghraph and The Wall Street Journal used the label in text at least once). Could you please clarify what you mean by "uncontroversial"? It is sufficient that they are considered "generally reliable" at WP:RSP, engaging in WP:OR claiming they do not explain it or complaining about "sloppy writers" reeks of "I don't like it". Davide King (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Per the survey, my position is pretty clear: indeed, yes, we should remove them.
You've failed to demonstrate why the sources you're arguing should support this label in the lead, whether it is reliable for a fact or statement per WP:RSEDITORIAL. The WP:ONUS is on you to support the inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
All the sources mentioned above are indeed considered RS by Wikipedia consensus, and, given that they do indeed use this label, I don't see where the failure to demonstrate really is. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
RS is dependent on context. News headlines are not RS for political classifications, and they are opinions which requires attribution. If there is a unison agreement for a term, its suitable. Since we have a wide range of terms used, there does not seem to be a consensus for far-right, only a subset of sources use that label. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
As has been told already, it is not mere headlines we are talking about but in-text usage of straight news articles (not WP:NEWSOPED) from reliable sources across the globe. There is not consensus for libertarian either, since there are those who do not see Milei as a libertarian due to some of his positions. So that is not a good argument against the use of the far-right label since we will be merely state that is one of the ways he has been described, not in wikivoice or as a fact. As noted by ChaotıċEnby, if we are going to list one or more labels as we currently do, we cannot not use one of the more widespread, as the above research showed. Also claiming that only a subset of reliable sources use that label is an understatement, to say the least. Davide King (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
News articles on politics are opinions, unless they are reporting about events, specific incidents or things someone said. Last time i checked the sources, the term far-right was either in the headline, or in the first sentence or paragraph of the article, and that could not be considered a RS for a political definition. I did not find any articles that explained or justified the far-right label directly, but many of the other labels have been explained and justified in further detail.
How many articles are there describing him as far-right, beyond it being used in the headline or first paragraph? I cant remember having seen any, but there could be new ones since last i went through them. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
No, news articles that are not labelled "op-eds" are not opinions, especially if they themselves do not say "Milei has been described as a far-right politician" but instead say "Milei, a far-right populist". Also academic articles and books are indeed the best sources but no one has presented them and there may not be much out yet to discuss Milei's developments in 2023. So news sources are the best we have and we do not dismiss them. Also WP:HEADLINE says: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source." There is no mention of the first paragraph being unreliable; in fact, the opposite is said: "If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body." So your question of "How many articles are there describing him as far-right, beyond it being used in the headline or first paragraph?" is irrelevant since all the reliable sources I am referring to used the label also in the body. Davide King (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
News articles can contain facts, but political discussions like these can never be facts, they are opinions by definition. The first paragraph is in many cases the subheadline, and the point was more if its WP:DUE as a political description, or if its just a notable label used as sensationalism because of how it is used in the articles. I would support including it as a label used with attribution. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, my proposal is not us stating "Javier Milei ... is an Argentine far-right politician" but that he has been described, among other labels, as far-right populist. I prefer usage of "far-right populist" over just "far-right" so as to avoid people thinking he has been described as neo-Nazi. Reliable sources using the far-right label, which I think is not used as sensationalism since it is not limited to the headline but also mentioned and discussied in the article's text, clearly use it in reference to radical-right populism (hence "far-right populist"), which scholars generally describe as a subset of far-right politics that does not reject democracy. Davide King (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
If we include it as a widespread opinion-label amongst international media, this would be undisputed at least. I did not see this label used outside of this (large) subset, which could be notable. My opinion is to apply attribution more rigorously, as that would no longer be disputable, but unfortunately its not the established practice. With attribution we could simply repeat the label the sources used, and nobody could misinterpret it. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
We would say that "Milei [or Mileis politics] has been variously described as [list the more widely labels used]", is that not good enough? Davide King (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
My impression is that certain labels are limited to specific types of sources, e.g. there has been dispute on the far-right label from at least a few sources. The disputed sources goes more in depth to describe why the label is not a good choice, compared to the sources that use it, which gives the label an impression of sensationalism.
Since we are not writing something along the lines of "is frequently labeled by international media as far-right." and "the far-right label has been criticized by xyz", the policy becomes much less clear on how to do this. It requires a lot of interpretation, and we struggle to find consensus. I don't know how to get out of such a deadlock within the defined policy. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that those contesting the far-right labels are WP:OPEDs like this (it is clearly labelled "Opinion", which confirms what I said: some users got the things reversed, it is op-eds (e.g. mere opinions) contesting the far-right label, and it is straight news articles from reliable sources across the globe using it. Do you have better sources that clearly criticize the far-right label? Also the lead must follow the body, and there is no criticism of the far-right label. Indeed, the same applies to the libertarian label. Do you support that we either remove that because there are some who do not consider Milei a libertarian due to some of his political positions or that we also say it has been criticized? This also would need to be in the body first. As long as we attribute all the labels, it should be fine. Davide King (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we also should consider that many are not using the label, without directly criticizing it, they are not supporting it either.
"I think we also should consider that many are not using the label". AFP, Al Jazeera English, the Associated Press, the BBC, Reuters, The Economist, The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, Le Monde, The New York Times, NPR, The Wall Street Journal, Time, El Diario, elDiario.es, El Mundo, El País, Perfil, Télam, Tiempo Argentino, and many others say "hi" to that statement... What you personally feel about the sources (e.g. "its [sic] not sensational news to criticize something") is irrelevant, as @Chaotic Enby explained many times now.
Ironically enough, the source you provided just further proved what I said; there is not much generally reliable sources openly criticizing the label, and it is mainly op-eds (e.g. WP:OPINION) questioning it. None of this is a valid reason to remove a label that has been widely used by such a diverse range of reliable sources across the goble, and that we are not stating as fact, just as one of the most prominent labels. In fact, that same Forbes article written by Steve Forbes himself that you linked confirms what I have been saying the whole time, namely that the label, whether we like it or not, has been widely used and is due to report as one of the descriptors. He wrote: "So is much of the international media, which portrays Milei as a far-right ... ." We do not need criticism, since we are not stating anything as fact, it is sufficient that it has been widely used, whether we like it or not, and you just proved my point. Davide King (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but I always agreed on "is frequently labeled by international media as far-right." I only wonder if it can be included without this attribution/clarification, since its so specific. My opinion on the sources is ofcourse not relevant. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, that is perfectly fine by me! I just thought it was redundant because it would be like saying he has been "frequently labeled by a bunch of reliable sources as far-right", you know like using Wikipedia jargon in wikivoice or that some may consider weaseling. But it should be fine, and if that is a wording that is fine by you, I am all on it! :-) Davide King (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I still fail to see why we should include any political label in the lead, attributed or otherwise. As mentioned already, there appears to be no widely accepted consensus on his political associations; therefore, what benefit is it to the reader to put every single one in the lead that's already been mentioned in the body? Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
You are wrongly assuming that we will "put every single one in the lead that's already been mentioned in the body" when the RfC is only about add "far-right" to "right-wing libertarian" and "right-wing populist" or simply turn, as I propose, "right-wing populist" into "far-right populist", which means there will only be two labels, or two labels ("right-wing libertarian" and "right-wing populist") but with a further sentence stating "[Milei] is frequently labeled by international media as far-right", or something to that effect, which would also summarize his "Public image" section. So it will still be in either case just two labels, when the body presents at least five of them. Whether we like it not, the "far-right" label is one of the significant viewspoints in regards to the topic of Milei's politics, and to deny this or avoiding this in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV. One is free to think that we should avoid any label to use but they should at least provide a prose that they would support in its place to get the same point and summarize Milei's politics as described by independent secondary reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
See also WP:ASSERT: When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher". We do not write: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. It is good practice, however, to include an inline citation to a reliable source to allow the reader to verify any fact that is not widely known." This seems to fit the climate change-related discussion because there are no reliable source disputing that Milei is a climate change denier or that he rejectes the scientific consensus on climate change. With "far-right", this is different and it will be attributed as one of the descriptrots used for Milei.
Note, however, WP:BALANCE, which says: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Those who argue that we cannot use the far-right label because it is contentious or because they claim there are not enough reliable sources in suport (there are), they are clearly missing this point. We do not include descriptors that are not as prominent as this one, we include both. Davide King (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Of course, just because a significant number of reliable sources use the far-right label as fact, it does not mean we must do the same, since there are also other reliable sources that use other labels. Thus, we present a range to represent all those reliable sources, without stating anything as fact. This comment (emphasis in bold added by me) by Günther Frager explains it very well: "[T]he proposal is how Milei has been described, and there are plenty of references in Argentine and international press with a wide spectrum of political views. The proposal is not about what he is, nor how he perceives himself, nor how Wikipedians perceive him, nor a debate whether the newspapers listed as reliable in WP:RSP are correct on their assertions or not. It is not even a discussion on whether he follows the populist tactics that Murray Rothbard advocated. What we should be discussing is how to write the sentence to ensure it is balanced as required by WP:NPOV." Davide King (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I find this discussion about statistics out of the point and meaningless, but I have to point out that the claim that only 15% of Google Scholar results of Javier Milei contain the term far-right is misleading. When I search in Google scholar for Javier Milei (without quotation marks) I obtain 1030 results, so on the same ball park as Kcmastrpc. The problem is that:
It includes results not only in English but also Spanish, Portuguese, German, etc. Such languages don't use the anglicism "far-right".
It includes the the academic papers written by Milei (his CV states he wrote 50) and papers that cite his work. They don't talk about him nor about politics
It includes papers that contain the words "Javier" and "Milei", but not "Javier Milei", including papers about American trypanosomiasis, Chlamydia pneumoniae, etc. Many of them in English. It should not be a surprise as José Milei is a renowned medical researcher with hundreds of publications and an i10-index of 99.
If I search for "Javier Milei" (with quotation marks), and restricting the search to English I obtain 206 results, including a handful related to his academic works. The query "Javier Milei" "far right" gives 97 results. That is, around 50% the publication that contain the term "Javier Milei" contain also the term "far right". Günther Frager (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I myself said that "this may be a bit simplicistic" but it was mainly a response to users who go as far as to deny that the "far-right" label has been widely used to describe Milei's politics. With this, I think you did a better job than me in making this point, so thank you. :-) Davide King (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the label has been used frequently, so we should include that media articles have frequently used this term somehow - to my knowledge it has been limited to that so far. The exact phrasing of this seems to have been difficult to get right, ideally one that offers a low amount of dispute, while also including the notable label. Attributing it is one way to solve that. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
The article mentions Milei's mother, Alicia, "whose maiden name is Lucich, is of Croatian descent": this isn't accurate, as there's no such thing as "maiden names" in Argentina, where women don't take their husbands' last names after marriage. Sugar-brick (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Milei's Speech at Davos
Has been getting massive coverage in the press and media.1 The speech itself seems to have gone viral on the internet. I am thinking it may ring the WP:N bell in it's own right. Any other opinions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so. At least not yet. What real-world impact has it had? It's not in the same category as "I have a dream...", is it?
Let the sources speak for this and include it in the body where appropriate. I think in the "Presidency (2023-Present)" section a new subsection titled "Foreign relations" could be useful where a snippet on the Davos speech is highlighted reflecting the global coverage from reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I am writing this because I think that the information about the cloned dogs should be revised, the source of this claims is an unauthorised biography titled 'El Loco' writed by periodist Juan Luis González who openly campaigned against Milei and as far as I know it doesn't have any sustain. 190.137.211.228 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Done, Looked through article and it seems like the information regarding the cloned dogs was revised. Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! MaximusEditor (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The picture is quite terrible
It is way too vertically long, not to mention Milei's face is waaaaay to the right, instead of centered. It's simply terrible. I properly cropped the original picture, I think my version is way better.
More scrutiny is needed here. The article claims he is the author of "50 academic papers" and this is patently false. The citation refers to his World Economic Forum profile, which is largely written by the persons themselves. It is not credible
Scopus, largely the most reputable scientific aggregation source, only refers to 4 publications. Actually 3, since a document is duplicated. Of these, only one (older, 1999) is actually peer reviewed, and he is not the main author. The others are an invited book chapter, and a 2-page profile on Forbes (https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7004452442)
Looks like somebody added an explanatory note for the pronunciation. That seems to have addressed the issue. Is there any other concerns? MaximusEditor (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
More detail about the Recent student protests
The current description is very short, add the facts that he kept the official budget the same despite a decline of official buying power, making it in practice ~80% lower, and that just days before the protests, he increased funding for specific sectors of university management that only made up ~8% of the total costs, changing it to only ~71% lower than before, also the protests started on the 23rd, not the 24th. It may be a few days before this information shows up in reputable English language sources but some of this was in the BBC article cited currently, and just so you can verify what I'm establishing here's a Spanish article with the more information: https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/04/23/fondos-para-universidades-pese-al-aumento-para-gastos-de-funcionamiento-concretado-ayer-el-presupuesto-total-es-un-71-inferior-al-de-2023/Hexifi (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
It has been nearly a month and this part is still very underdeveloped, I suggest someone follows up on this. Hexifi (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
In order to be used on a Wikipedia article, images must be uploaded to Wikipedia commons, which requires images to follow standard copyright law, to my knowledge, there is no public domain image of Milei in the Ancap costume, so until someone decides to lift their copyright on one of the images, it cannot be in the article, sadly :( Hexifi (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The article currently states that 'He had written more than 50 academic papers by 2016'. However, he appears in Scopus (accessed June 14, 2024), as a coauthor of only one article, published in 1998, 'La disputabilidad en la industria telefonica Argentina' Beker, V., Rozenwurcel, G., Cenzon, E., Galperin, C., Milei, J.
Desarrollo Economico, 1998, 38(150), pp. 566–592
The evidence cited for his 'more than 50 articles' is a World Economic Forum bio (ref. 16).
I would propose editing the content to read 'It has been reported that he has written more than 50 academic papers (ref16), however, according to the Scopus database he has only coauthored a single academic paper, in 1998 (cite1998article).' Espanocanuck (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2024
This edit request to Javier Milei has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024
This edit request to Javier Milei has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article currently states that 'He had written more than 50 academic papers by 2016' (First paragraph in section 'economic career'.) However, he appears in Scopus (accessed June 14, 2024), as a coauthor of only one article, published in 1998, cited below.
The evidence cited for his 'more than 50 articles' is a short World Economic Forum bio (ref. 16) that is not itself supported by any further information.
Please change the phrase
'He had written more than 50 academic papers by 2016'
to read
'It has been publicly claimed that he has written more than 50 academic papers (ref16). However, according to the Scopus database, he appears only as a coauthor on a single academic paper, about the Argentinian telephone industry, published in 1998 (cite1998article).'
La disputabilidad en la industria telefonica Argentina' Beker, V., Rozenwurcel, G., Cenzon, E., Galperin, C., Milei, J.
Desarrollo Economico, 1998, 38(150), pp. 566–592
Thanks, I hadn't realized that rule - after reading up on it, I do agree that this is original research, by the Wikipedia definitions. Unfortunately I cannot find an appropriate source for this at present, so I guess it needs to wait for someone to investigate it and write an article.
However, the original ref. 16, as well as the second reference that was added since I made the original posting (ref. 17), are both questionable by Wikipedia standards, as I understand them. The World Economic Forum bio is promotional material, and the Uruguayan news site (ref. 17) does not provide any indication of how it is known that he wrote 50 articles - it may well have come from the World Economic Forum bio.
Given the questionability of refs. 16 and 17, I would amend my request to simply remove the phrase
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024
This edit request to Javier Milei has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request that the title "Leon de Argentina (Lion of Argentine)" be added to the article after his name. This title has been afforded to him by his people, and is only right that it should be included as it is for other historical figures. 2606:6A40:61:D537:8CCE:E6FF:FED7:CBD (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe that you can edit the article yourself now, which you can add the sources as you like. I appreciate you taking the time to find sources for your claim, so thank you anyway Ilovefood123123 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Done, Looked through article and it seems like the information regarding the cloned dogs was revised. 
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. PianoDan (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2024 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are two citations that make the 50 article claim. What you propose constitutes original research and needs to be backed by secondary sources. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
