User talk:193.69.198.165

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, at 193.69.198.165, has made edits to Javier Milei that do not conform to our policies and guidelines and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

• Help contents – the main help page.
• Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Introduction to Wikipedia

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Davide King (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Javier Milei

RE this, when even the right-wing Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraph use those labels, they are no longer "non-descriptive" or a "slander" [sic]. Your argument is basically that reliable sources are wrong and are misinterpretaing his views. That may well be true but Wikipedia is not to be used to right great wrongs. You're basically arguing that we should just trust whatever the subject says and thinks, which is perfectly fine when limited and we do it (we say he "considers himself to be a short-term minarchist or liberal-libertarian but philosophically an anarcho-capitalist. ... he believes that Argentina is a tax hell and advocates for a fast reduction in government spending in order to balance the budget") but that's it — Wikipedia is based around independent, secondary sources, with primary sources limited to direct quotes and what the subject thinks (even this is not absolute, as it would still be necessary to have at least secondary source that makes it due).

If you think that the media is inherently biased in an irrational and unreasonable way (Wikipedia does recognizes that sources have a bias, in all political directions, and in fact are not required to be neutral, they just need to be reliable when it comes to facts or commentary, which may be attributed if there's no consensus but there appears to be a consensus among reliable sources on the labels), you probably won't like it here. You may have a point if any of those cites failed VERIFICATION, e.g. they are used to support something an inline when they do not support it, but that isn't strue. For example, about public education, the source says: "'In my government, there is not going to be cultural Marxism,' Milei stressed. 'I will not be apologizing for having a penis. I don't have to feel ashamed of being a man, white, blond with light blue eyes,' the flamboyant economist stressed during an appearance at Buenos Aires' Book Fair, where he was launching his latest publication. The libertarian leader also stressed public education was 'brainwashing.'" We do mention he said precisely that, in regards to your claim that we do not write enough about what he says.

Ultimately, if there are any reliable sources that support your claims (e.g. did he actually backtrack from Bolsonaro or Trump, or to use in your words that he isn't a follower [I now changed that into 'supporter', which seems more neutral or better wording] of them, and reliable sources reported this?), then we can work together to edit the article accordingly. Davide King (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"Articles should not state things as facts, when they are opinions. Even if they are the opinions of several secondary sources, they should be presented as such." The thing is that there's consensus among reliable sources that he is far right (not a neo-Nazi, the far right also include extremist or radical conservatives), when even right-wing reliable sources use the label. WP:NPOV doesn't mean conflating consensus among reliable media sources and engage in false balance. This is the point you're missing. If reliable sources had significant disagreement, then we attribute them. Or in this specific case, we may say: "He has been variously described as far-right, right-wing libertarian, conservative [and all other labels]", which would be fine by me. I oppose using weasel wording such as "the media" or "sources", it's just not good editorial practice here. In the body, we may instead list and directly cite the various media (e.g. "He has been described as far right by several Argentine and Spanish-language publications, including elDiario.es, El Mundo, El País, Perfil, Télam, and Tiempo Argentino"), so I'm not opposed to any editing suggestion; I just would like us to avoid weasling and redundancy like "the media" or "sources" when we mention how they have described him.

"This is not about using Wikipedia to right great wrongs, it is about the article being used for political activism. Articles should remain neutral." Indeed. That also means we must not take at face value what the subject may say. Many far-rightists deny being racist or antisemitism, we don't take them at face value when they say that.

"Your argument is that because something was written by a secondary source, it is automatically a fact and can be stated as such." That's not what I meant, I'm just saying adding "the media" or "sources" is redundant. As I said, we may change the wording to "Politically, Milei has been variously described as far right, right-wing libertarian, conservative, and ultraconservative". But there is no point adding "by the media", especially for the lead, which should be concise. We may cite the various media in the body and explicitily cite them, rather than say "by the media" or "sources".

"The readers of a Wikipedia article should be presented with a neutral article, and make their own judgements. They do not need someone to make interpretations for them and rewriting media articles as facts." Indeed. But here's the thing, Wikipedia reflects the interpretation done by reliable secondary sources; Wikipedia articles are supposed to be read more like a tertiary source than solely or excessively from the primary source POV. What's exactly biased in saying that reliable sources have described him as far right? We're simply reporting their observation, nor ours, and we aren't stating them as fact. Stating as fact would be like putting the far-right label in the very first sentence, like "Javier Milei is an Argentine far-right politician". That would not be neutral and stating something as fact. Saying, as we currently do, "Politically, Miles has been described as far-right" is not a fact because there's already the "described" qualifier, and that "by reliable sources (e.g. the media) is implicitily understood.

"The Wikipedia article claims he is a follower/supporter of Trump and Bolsonaro, and uses a media article as evidence. This is not correct, the very same media article explicitly quotes Milei as having a neutral view of them." That's wrong, and I just realized it now, as I checked the source again. It doesn't say "neutral" but "natural". The source quotes Milei as literally saying: "My alignment with Bolsonaro and Trump is almost natural." This is very different from "neutral", and he himself said that he is aligned with Bolsonaro and Trump. If there're reliable sources reporting that he has since disaligned from them, please provide them.

"The Wikipedia article further claims he opposes sexual education in schools, using another media article as evidence. This is not correct, the article provides quotes from Milei, where he states that 'Educación Sexual Integral' is being used for political activism, and therefore will cancel it. The source does not support the claim he is against sexual education in schools." You're being pedantic, we're paraphrasing as we cannot use the same words used in the source, and no one else seem to have an issue with it. Would you be okay with changing "sexuality education" to "Educación Sexual Integral"?

"The Wikipedia article is filled with this type of misuse, especially because its all being presented as fact. The amount of work required to correct this article is quite large, especially with the constant vandalism happening. This particular person is controversial, very critical of socialism and communism, and is thus experiencing significant attack from these kind of political activists. This kind of political activism does not belong on Wikipedia. This is the very reason things needs to be written with caution, making it clear for the reader which things are facts, which things are opinions etc" What exactly is presented as fact? We do not say that he's far right, we say that he has been described [by reliable sources] as far right, among the other labels. Also, who are those "political activists" you're talking about? It goes both way. Whitewashing him too and deleting sources using the far-right label, as other users did, is political activism, as would be taking at face value the subject's views or just using primary sources when describing them. Again, none is stated as fact, and is always qualified with the "described [by reliable sources]" wording. Davide King (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"It appears we are more or less in agreement regarding Wikipedia guidelines, and I agree with most of your comments, I will reply where i see deviation;"

• That's good to know :-)

"The Wikipedia article did state 'is a ...', 'supports ...' as factual claims in the recent edits the last couple of days, but its improving."

• Thankfully, that is one of the great things about Wikipedia. In the beginning, or when the article achives many viewers, it's normal to have such issues as the situation evolves and as new reliable sources are provided; the amazing thing is that, with time and wider participation, issues get even out and there're significant improvements.

"I would prefer to be more explicit about who are using the various terms"

• That would be fine if we were talking about individuals (e.g. "A scholar says subject is X, B scholar says subject is Y, C scholar agrees with X, etc.") but it's media organizations and entities that we're talking about it. I mean, the whole article is sourced to news sources but we don't say "News sources A said that subbject..." or "According to news source B"; it's redundant. If there was a disagreement about the far-right label (even centrist and right-wing ones used it) and if it was stated as fact rather than a description, you may have had a point. The lead is also to be supposed to be a summary, so it should generalize, whereas the body and relevant section can go in greater detail, including explicitily citing those individuals or news organizations and how they have described the subject. We do use attribution for quotes or when there's no consensus among reliable sources, there's a controversy, which does not appear to be the case, as you came to concede that there are indeed many secondary sources using those descriptions.

"Describing someone as a 'radical', 'far', 'ultra', does not seem appropriate for a political candidate with the most amount of votes in an election (>30% of the voting population), mainstream would be an equally descriptive word (which is why i say using these terms are non-descriptive and slander), but it is correct that he has been called those things by many secondary sources, and there is no problem stating that."

• That's not a really good argument because I think you're confusing extremist for fringe. While most extremist parties or candidates are fringe, it's not impossible for them to achieve significant votes and thus become mainstream, and it has happened more than once. Just think of the Nazis. In the early 1920s, they were extremists and fringe; by the early 1930s, they had become mainstream and achieved significant votes (even though in the last election they did so through violence, they had achieved significant votes and numbers before the country's last democratic election until 1945) but they were no less extremists than in the 1920s.

"in particular in this situation because the Argentinian news have been actively used against him in the political campaign (which are often the sources used directly in the Wikipedia article, or the sources that international sources are using), but i can concede on this point since it may not apply generally to Wikipedia."

• Well, that's not really a great argument, sorry. All politicians suffer from criticism but that isn't a good reason to remove those sources; it'd be like using only left-wing/right-wing sources, or those that are of the same political position of the subject in questions, to describe the subject (e.g. using communist sources for a communist politician, conservative sources for a conservative politicians, and so on). We just do not do that, and in fact we try to rely on the least partisan sources. I do appreciate you can concede this point0.

"Regarding 'neutral' vs 'natural', this is my mistake, i will try to explain. My interpretation of the whole paragraph reads as they are united in support against communism, not that he supports them. I read 'neutral' by mistake since they come from very different political philosophies, but they do share a common theme which is anti-communist which makes it easy to conflate them. This point is lost in the Wikipedia article, and focuses exclusively on associating him with national conservatives, which is not part of his political philosophy."

• In fact, all three have been described, among other labels, as right-wing populists (in Europe, there're right-wing poulists who are closer to the centre-left on economics or that support state intervention, but there're also right-wing populists who are very much economically liberal), so it's not really surprising to me. I'm not sure the sources are saying that he merely support them because of anti-leftism, my reading is that he support them broadly (it doesn't mean he supports all of their policy but that he supports them beyond anti-leftism), and that is what I've read from others sources that mention this but are not used in that inline to avoid refbombing. I'll try checking more reliable sources about it, and eventually re-word the phrasing accordingly.

"Regarding 'Educación Sexual Integral', there are important details lost here. It is not an opposition to sexual education, he is opposed to socialism and communism, which he believes is being taught in these classes. His opposition has nothing to do with sexual education itself, it is that the state decides what should be taught in these classes he opposes, because in this case he believes the state in Argentina is using it for indoctrinating children with their political agenda. Removing a state controlled sexual education class will solve this problem, and schools would be free to define their own curriculum for sexual education. I believe the source states this as well."

• What does sexual education have to do with socialism and communism? That just sounds like a conspiracy theory and if, anithing else, gives credence to his article reading that he believes in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. In fact, was there a Communist government in Argentina? Because last time I checked, it was led by the centre-right, and the Justicialists, the other main political group at government and the one I assume he's referring to when saying the government is indoctrinating children, range from non-communist leftists to centre-right. But again, I'll try to find if there are reliable sources that are more literally and explicitly supporting the inline.

"The theme across all these are anti-communist, which is not really explained in the article. Instead the angle implies he is an extremist, national conservative, who will stage a coup, and supports rape. While it is not explicitly written this way, I oppose this style of writing, as it does not provide a neutral description of what he said or what his policies are. This is cherry-picking very particular things, without providing context, in order to increase the negativity and controversy. The sources in question are basing their commentary on what he said, but in many references his actual words are not quoted or available, these should be available in the used sources in order to limit the chinese whispers problem."

• Well, it's not Wikipedia's fault if reliable sources from Reuters to The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraph describe him as far right. As I said, Wikipedia's goal is not to right great wrongs, and if there's any bias, it's simply the result of the reliable sources themselves but there's no neutral or unbiased sources, only less and more partisan ones, which may still be reliable and get facts right. Additionally, many of those topics are supported by tertiary source articles that make a summary for us, such as The Economist, and thus they're due; in fact, The Economist listed his scepticism of COVID-19 vaccines but that's only mentioned in the lead, so it goes both ways. Certainly, his anti-communism/socialism should be expanded. It's also not true that the cited sources are not using quotes or Milei's own words (for example, we quote him about what he said on the sale of children, citing a source that did so, e.g. quoted him); we're simply describing his views, for example on abortion (he did say that he oppose it even in rape cases, that's not the source making this interpretation, as you claim). I'm open to any suggestion and improvement, but I'd like to avoid weasel words like "the media" or "sources", because not everything must be attributed (the reading would be awful if we'd do that for every inline); the importating thing is that we make clear those are descriptions, and are the views expressed of the cited sources, which I think we already do, for examply by saying that he "has been variously described as far right" rather than "he is on the far right". The former is a more concise way to express a descrption without citing as a fact, the latter is stating something as a fact, period.

"Another strange addition is this 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' reference. Milei uses Cultural Marxism frequently, against socialist and communist activism in society. He is an outspoken anti-communist, obviously he opposes communist ideas, and the promotion of communist ideas. Labeling that as a conspiracy theory seems absurd. The Wikipedia article about the 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' states things like it being antisemitic, which makes no sense since Milei is supportive of Jews. Anyway, this is another discussion entirely, but socialist and communist activism can not be called a conspiracy theory. The reference in question does not support the claim that he supports a 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' as described on Wikipedia, only that he uses the term 'Cultural Marxism'. He signed the Madrid Charter, which forms an opposition to groups such as the São Paulo Forum and the Puebla Group. The existence of these groups can not be called a conspiracy theory. How is this level of distortion even handled on Wikipedia?"

• It is indeed confusing for those who don't know about it or the story behind, so I'll try to explain but I think our current article and the lead explains it well. It's considered antisemitic because its origins are in far-right, antisemitic groups and because it resembles the Nazi's "Cultural Bolshevism". It can also be considered antsemitic in that its far-right supporters may see it as dog-whistle, with "Communists" and "Jews" being the same thing to them; many prominent members of the Frankfurt Scool were Jews. Since the 2010s, however, it has become mainstream as its rethoric was also used by mainstream right-wing parties and politicians, many of whom are not aware of its antiesmitic and Nazi origins. Thus, not every modern politician is an antisemitic but that's not a necessary condition to believe in the conspiracy theory. In fact, I haven't read of Milei being an antisemitic and that is why we say "far-right ... conspiracy theory" (not "far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theory) and do not make any mention of antisemitism or Milei being antisemitic. Indeed, the conspiracy theory has been adopted by individuals who are by no means antisemitic but it may still be considered antisemitic due to its origins and the radical right seeing it as a dog whistle, and may still not necessarely make someone antisemitic if they indeed do not know its origins or his deeds show they're nowhere near close to antisemitism. But I can see and understand why it can be considered antisemitic even when its proponent isn't.
• As our article says, there's no such thing as Cultural Marxism; there're cultural analysis through Marxist lens but they have nothing to do with "Cultural Marxism", or even cultural/social liberalism/progressivism, as conspiracy theorists understand it. Even socialist and communist activism has nothing to do with Cultural Marxism; there exists activists for any ideology, it doesn't make that a conspiracy theory, what makes a conspiracy theory is unsubstantiated allegetions of control and indoctrination (e.g. "Communists secretly control schools and government", it must be secretly because, again, there's no communist government in Argentina). So what do São Paulo Forum and the Puebla Group have to do with Cultural Marxism? They are an organization of left-wing parties and are not limited to Communist parties, so I don't understand where you see the connection. In fact, as we say, its believers misrepresents the views of the Frankfurt School and conflates it for cultural liberalism/progressvism and the left-wing position on socio-cultural issues. Thus, if he's merely opposed to the cultural left-wing, why not using those terms instead? The fact he is using Cultural Marxism is telling and that's why we say he believes in the conspiracy theory. The fact that he's an anti-comunist doesn't not excuse him from spouting what is an obvious conspiracy theory, which alleging that a government in a multi-party liberal democracy and under a capitalist economy is somehow spreading communist propaganda and indoctrinating children, it perfectly fits the definition of a conspiracy theory and Wikipedia's definition of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

So sorry for the length but I tried to explain myself and make it as clear as possible. I enjoyed discussing with you, even if we may disagree. :-) Davide King (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it short this time and avoid answering all of your points. I think that most of what you said and my response to it can be summarized thusly: there isn't much we can do it about it because our own political or personal opinions, outside of those releated to our policy and guidlines (for example, we're free to disagree on whether the article is neutral, whether something is due, in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), shouldn't matter when writing the articles. Wikipedia is not supposed to report the WP:TRUTH, though it's obviously going to report truth on things everyone agree with; it's merely a summary of what reliable sources report and say. So we may well disagree with what they say, as you in this case with Milei (e.g. you're free to think they're giving an oversemplified summary of his relations to Trump and Bolsonaro), but we must respect and follow reliable sources, even if we think they're wrong or personally disagree with. Remember, even if there may not be an attribution, Wikipedia is merely reporting what those sources say.

So when Wikipedia reads that Milei has been variously described [by reliable sources] as far right, or that he has been compare to Trump and Bolsonaro, it's not Wikipedia making the judgement, it's the reliable sources, and its wording should reflect it is a description and not a fact. When one understand this, much of the criticism falls. What can be done to address your concerns is through wording improvment, which I think the article underwent massively in those last days. Please, don't feel upset if I may continue to revert your edits, because you're new and so you may not be aware of the way we write the article (without knowing it, you may use wording that isn't appropriate or better than before). I'll try, as I did those days, to keep your concerns and edit accordingly through the appropriate wording that I know is acceptable, having edited and seen thousands of thousands of article, and thus I know exactly which wording is appropriate and which is not, and what is the usual wording that we follow.

As for abortion, I don't think it's cherry picking if several reliable sources noted the issue and mentioned the episode, thus making it WP:DUE. As for Cultural Marxism, I think there was a misunderstanding; because I never mentioned, or meant to (in this case, my bad if I confused you), the Madrid Charter in relation to Cultural Marxism; his and the Madrid Forum's criticism of the São Paulo Forum is not Cultural Marxism but simply opposition to communism. The "Cultural Marxism" thing, in regards to Malei, has not much to do with the Madrid Charter or his anti-communism but everything to do to the fact that he's rallying against "Cultural Marxism" and is more related to the education thing, e.g. that Marxists control the culture (including education). As I said in the beginning, there isn't much we can do about it. If reliable sources make this connection, we have to respect this and reflect it in the article. Again, we may well disagree with them, for example one may say that there mere mention of "Cultural Marxism" in a number of speeches may not be enough to call someone a believer in the conspiracy theory. Yet, if reliable sources consider "Cultural Marxism" to refer to the conspiracy theory and thus they consider them belivers in the conspiracy theorys, we must reflect that in our articles. Davide King (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking the time to discuss, I think we are in agreement. The article is indeed converging towards something useful, faster than i expected. There is still a handful of things that could be improved, but its nothing like it was a 2-3 days ago. I'll keep adding comments to any modifications i make in the article, to explain my thinking behind the changes. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Madrid Forum

RE this, you were correct and I've edited the article accordingly. That's because I was sure reliable sources also used that label because I thought that, as most of its signators are right-wingers, they may also consider moderate left-wing politics as communism, for example Vox in regards to the PSOE. But as I just said in the message above, we must not let our personal opinions take over when writing Wikipedia's article. As I couldn't find any source for the label so far, I simply removed it due to lack of support among reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Javier Milei and abortion

That's the primary-secondary sources distinction that I told you about. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, and they support the anti-abortion claim. I mean, do you even deny that he personally appose abortion? Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." Notice how many caveat there are for WP:PRIMARY; this is a clear example of this. As I said, even extreme right-wing racists deny that they're racist but Wikipedia still says they're white supremacists, for example, because that's what secondary reliable sources may say. What you're doing is violating the fourth caveat. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Secondary sources report his anti-abortion position, whether we may personally disagree with it. Davide King (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats fine, we stick with the secondary sources in the article, but I'm personally looking for secondary sources which are backed by primary sources. In these cases in my personal investigation i have not found any primary source to back it up, but we can agree that there are multiple secondary sources that claim this. There is also no denying he is anti-abortion, but to my knowledge he does not have any anti-abortion political program, which is confirmed by chequeado. I think that is quite important to highlight. Anarcho-capitalists does not believe in the state dictating anything, so this always seemed strange to me.

In this case, we have articles that are directly contradicting each other. The chequeado article references the political program that was released two weeks ago, and there is no mention of the anti abortion law, or any plans to make any changes. The only thing chequeado states, is that he will hold a referendum. Not sure how you could have any more neutral political position than that, regardless of his personal opinions.

The question is, how should Wikipedia deal with contradicting secondary sources? It seems misleading to include them arbitrarily, when they are contradicting each other. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise agreed regarding primary vs secondary sources. I'm only referencing secondary sources in the article. I also don't cite primary sources beyond what is included in the secondary source. I use them in my investigation outside of the Wikipedia article for quality assurance of things i put in. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Re referendum vs plebiscite, this is more a language technicality. Spanish often uses words that are similar to English words, but referendum is the more common choice in English so i think we should use that. With regards to Spanish to English translation of the quote, and removing the two trailing words that was added, well... fine. But how should translations be handled, since the quotes are originally in Spanish? Translations can be quite tricky to get right, and some interpretation is required, even the LLMs will make interpretations for machine translations. Alternatively we could only use English sources, which is nearly impossible for this article. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

---