Talk:Javier Milei/Archive 2

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

POV: Political description

The article fails to include criticism of terms like 'far-right', 'populist', 'ultra' and 'radical'. Several minority view sources comment on this specifically, and should be included in the article, otherwise it appears like censorship. The criticism comes from many independent minority sources, including an opinion article from "mainstream media";

https://www.larazon.es/opinion/milei-ultraderecha_2023081764dd4edc714dff0001b67cf7.html

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/javier-milei-against-the-dead-consensus/

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/javier-milei-and-the-paradox-of-freedom/

Further, there are two sources stating that his politics are difficult to classify (the article is clearly opposed to Milei), which is exactly the criticism these minority sources claim, that his politics appear to confuse journalists;

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-08-15/whats-going-on-inside-javier-mileis-head.html

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-03-30/javier-milei-the-unclassifiable-argentine-politician.html 193.69.198.165 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The first one is an opinion piece by a minarchist economist, not a political scientist, so he does not hold the necessary weight to overcome all the other reliable sources. I don't see what it may add, we already say that Milei has been described in various ways, including (right-wing) libertarian, which seems to be the label this author thinks to be more accurate; I think this source is already well-used for its quote about Milei's coalition's self-description, and I don't think the chosen wording and the way you made use of it is an improvement.
The other is from The American Conservative, about which the WP:RSP says: "The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. There is consensus that opinions sourced to it must always be accompanied with in-text attribution." So I would not use it as if to show the pletheora of other reliable sources are wrong. In fact, that same source compares him to Tucker Carlson.
The European Conservative already takes a minority position by acknowledging that "[e]ver since the Brexit-cum-Trump dual shock of 2016, most of the international press has resorted to labeling candidates and causes to the right of establishment liberal-conservatism as 'far-right,' 'fringe,' or even 'extreme.'" In fact, it can be used to further support the claim that even right-wing and economic liberal reliable sources support the far-right label! "But for the usual few neoliberal papers—the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and The Economist—the entire global press woke up on Monday affixing in unison the 'far-right' label to the scruff-haired, leather-clad libertarian economist."
When even the right-wing and economic liberal reliable press used the far-right label, what more is it needed... Davide King (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a side note, this Reason article quotes him self-describing as "classical liberal". I wonder whether that's just a translation of "liberal-libertarian" or, if not, shouldn't this be added as one of his self-descriptors alongside anarcho-capitalist and liberal-libertarian? VintageVernacular (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be either a translation for liberal-libertario ("liberal-libertarian") or perhaps because Milei only said liberale ("liberal") in the original quote, Reason felt the need to clarify that, by liberal, Milei was referring to classical liberalism (specifically) rather than social liberalism. Davide King (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
It must also be considered that it goes both way; an article isn't not neutral just because it's critical (whatever is meant by death) but also because it may be too positive or whitewash it. For example, here, another IP said that we were whitewashing his views about transgender rights, and they may have a point. Even on homnsoexuality, he said: "If you decide to be homosexual, how does that affect my life." The first part seems to imply that he believs homsexuality to be a choice, which is contrary to the scientific consensus. Davide King (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Soyence strikes once again this is not a ””””scientific””””” question but a matter of the father of sciences filosophy
the fact that there can be
”””scientific””” consensus on origins of a behavior among men that is highly personal and highly malible by society is absurd beyond belief especially when the trait is inherantly selected against by it’s very nature 93.106.5.95 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Even his support of same-sex marriage is similarly based on the "I don't care" attitude regarding transgender rights rather than equality. As Argentina has had same-sex marriage since 2010, it can't be even considered a particularly liberal position (he simply supports the status quo), and drug legaliazion has been supported across the political spectrum, so none of this contradict the pletheora of sources that consider him to be a conservative on social issues; the relevant social issues of the 2020s are abortion, transgender rights and sexual education, and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, on which he is on the right-wing side of each of those issues. His support for drug legalization and same-sex marriage does not contradict this, as several conservatives of right-wingers have supported either one of those positions or both (in the UK, the Conservatives legalized same-sax marriage). He is considered a radical right-wing or conservative due to his position about abortion, lack of support for transgender rights, and belief in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. In addition to this, he is considered on the radical right due to his economic views.
Also considering how many other libertarians (I include those on the left) support abortion and transgender rights, Milei's libertarianism is limited to the economic sphere, thus the argument that he is a libertarian and thus cannot possibily be far-right (radical right populist) doesn't hold up to scrutinity. In fact, the lead already include all the labels that have been used by the media and himself: anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, liberal-libertarian, ultraconservative, far-right, right-wing populist, and (right-wing) libertarian. We already include the labels of both reliable sources using the far-right label and those who disagree and use other labels. You seem to want us to explicitily tell that there are some who disagree with the far-right label; it seems that you acknowledge that they, those disagreeing with the far-right label usage, represent a minority position but that this is due and leadworthy, but I disagree, especially if those are the best sources you could find, that is not enough.
In fact, that same El País piece support this. "This is where he gets his conservative values, such as nationalism and anti-abortionism. ... But he combines that hyperliberal ideology and freedom with elements of the extreme-right. ... If he has so many voters, it's not because he's liberal – it's because he represents the anti-establishment, as Podemos did in Spain from the left. Here, [in Argentina], it's done from the right." All of this is in support of what our article is saying and that his views may be considered confusing or contradictory because he mixes liberal policies (mainly on the economy) with far-right ones. But we already say that in the final paragraph of the lead. Personally, I'm not surprised at all because here in Europe it's not uncommon for right-wing populists to hold liberal or right-wing views on the economy. I'm not opposed in principle, but I'm currently opposed to your edits about it because of (1) the wording used (it can be worked out though) and (2) the sources do not seem to be good enough and because you seem to have misunderstood the El País piece that, as just explained, do not contradict our article. Davide King (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
From my personal knowledge of the world and of humanity. the use of an insult if you use it enough will be adopted. I don’t think the ”””far right””” really cares about if you call them far fight only mainstream centre right people get spooked by it and that par with their libian nature. 93.106.5.95 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
In short, the mere fact that we have all those labels listed already implies that there are those who disagree, and we are not making any preference of one of the other. You may have had a point if we had "far-right [or right-wing populist] politician and economist" in the very first sentence. We do not do that though, do we? Davide King (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
To all the comments above;
Neutrality is about presenting all notable sides, from many different sources, with minimum amount of distortion. Contradictions between reliable sources should not be left without highlighting them etc.
I have not proposed to remove sources calling him far-right. The only thing i opposed is stating it as fact, which was done in earlier versions of the article. Then i proposed to mention the criticism of the various labels, which i believe there is a notable amount of. The argument against it appears to be limited criticism in mainstream media, but that doesn't seem to be a fair point when the criticism is against the mainstream medias use of these terms. There was also one article with criticism that appeared in mainstream media (the opinion piece). He was then described as "unclassifiable" and "difficult to classify" by El Pais, which supports the criticism stated by the minority sources. This seems more than sufficient to warrant including statements that these terms have been criticized. The edit then highlighted how disjointed the labeling has been, there does not seem to be unison label, but a mix of many, and the El País articles explicitly states this.
Regarding social views, Milei supports freedom and equality before the law, the confusion comes in because he is strongly opposed to the ideas of social inequality and social justice. It has nothing to do with opposition or lack of support of transgender rights, he is by definition supporting equal rights because the only rights granted by the state are through laws. His opposition to to social inequality and social justice is to laws that are favoring one group over another, thats by definition inequality before the law. This is in strong contrast to the typical conservative politicians, who wants to impose their morals on others by law, so the way the conservative label is used today could mean anything, so it means nothing. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
More articles with criticism of how he is presented by the media, but i don't want to be ref bombing the article either;
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/u-s-media-are-getting-milei-all-wrong/
https://www.cato.org/commentary/dont-confuse-javier-milei-jair-bolsonaro 193.69.198.165 (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it's not only fair but a correct warning to readers that the term "LIBERTARIAN FASCIST" was created on Aug. 14, 2023 by the New York Times. As of August 23, 2023, there is no definition of what a "LIBERTARIAN FAR RIGHT" or "LIBERTARIAN FASCIST" is. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"Neutrality is about presenting all notable sides, from many different sources, with minimum amount of distortion." No, that's not neutrality. WP:NPOV explicitily forbids us from presenting minority views, such that he is not far-right or radical right, on equal grounds with the majority views; that would be an example of false balance. As I said, we already mention all those different labels, and the sources you're using are eighter right-wing (it'd be like using Jacobin to describe Milei's positions, we do not do that) like National Review or libertarian themselves like the Cato Institute. WP:RSN says: "There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." About the Cato Institute, we say: "The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed." In general, the lead is to summarize key facts, so we should not use things that may require attribution. Davide King (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"I have not proposed to remove sources calling him far-right. The only thing i opposed is stating it as fact, which was done in earlier versions of the article." Then why are we even discussing this? "Then i proposed to mention the criticism of the various labels, which i believe there is a notable amount of." You may have had a point if this was not limited to right-wing or libertarian (e.g. non-independent) sources; of course they would oppose the far-right label! But if we do this for Milei, then a can of pandora is opened because the same sources you rely to support this also reject the same label for right-wing populists that are routinely called far right by the reliable sources. Because trust me, this isn't the first time that right-wing sources opposed calling right-wing populists far right; if more independent sources explicitily support the claim that there's a disagreement, then I'd support to add a wording about it. As things stand, the fact say "variously described" is enough. It already implies disagreement and a wide range of labels. Davide King (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
We are discussing it because "The article fails to include criticism". I did not claim it should be on equal grounds, but that it should be included in the article. Obviously its going to be people who disagree with the statements that criticize it (such as "right wingers"), who else? Thats not a good reason to omit them. There are many independent sources here, the argument cannot be that they are excluded because they disagree with the content of the article. It is exactly why it should be included?
The same arguments could be used for the opposition, we cant include them because they disagree with Milei. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If that applies to many other right-wingers, then why not include it there as well? The pandora's box should be open, minority views should not be excluded in its entirety, that only leads to extremism. False balance should ofcourse be avoided, but in this particular case we are talking about a mix of sources, including conservatives, minarcists and libertarians. We perfectly agree they are minority sources. The proposed edits were even supported by a reliable source that is considered to be on the "left" (El Pais). 193.69.198.165 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The thing is that there's no need for it because we do not describe it as fact. Also why only include criticism of the far-right label? Why not include criticism of those who deny it, for example it could be argued that Milei is authoritarian due to his hatred of the left (anything left of centre is an enemy), which may result in democratic backsliding or authoritarianism. I don't think we should do this because there is no need to do it. Unless we have reliable sources themselves saying "Milei has been described as far right but some disagree", there's no need to do it. Because all we have are opinion pieces, which requires attributions. In fact, the El País piece doesn't critcizies the far-right label and acknowledes that Milei hold conservative or far-right sources, it simply supports the view that Milei is hard to label but that is already supported in our article; in the lead, where we list the labels used to describe him, including his self-description, and now in the now body we also discuss what various news organization have said about him that is not limited to far right.
In short, if you want us to state that there is criticism or disagreement about certain label, we need reliable sources to do that for us. So far, we only have opinion pieces. I'd rather avoid a situation of "he says, she says", which admittedly we already do by reporting what two scholars told El País. If and when reliable sources do say "There is disagreement among scholars. Some have criticized the use of the far-right label", then it will be due to add and I would be the first to do so. And I am talking about the Associated Press, BBC, Bloomberg, Reuters... Davide King (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
You should indeed include criticisms of the ones who deny it, if there are many sources that support that. Those likely belong in the articles specifically about those sources, you cant include everything everywhere.
If you have several sources that claim Milei is authoritarian, they should probably be included. Its a bit ironic you mention democratic backsliding or authoritarianism, as the he is making the argument that this is exactly what the left are doing. But if you are waiting for Associated Press, BBC, Bloomberg or Reuters to criticize their own use of the labels, then you will be waiting a long time.
A single opinion piece is not the same as coming from several opinion pieces, there are even reputable opinion sources like Rallo and Cato included. We are not talking about extremist fringe here, these are simply political minorities participating in the debate. Adding attribution is not the problem, but thats not done for all opinions in the article today anyway. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The thing is there are not many good sources that support those criticism for now, otherwhise I would have put them. My argument was not ironic, it was just showing that it goes both ways; like Milei thinks that is what the left is doing, so his critics think that his anti-leftism may result in democratic backsliding or authoritarianism. Both have a point. It is also why I have not put criticism of the libertarian label from those who consider him a closet authoritarian. It is just not good writing to focus on sources disagreeing with each other, unless it becomes truly significant that it cannot be ignore, rather than focus on how they have variously labelled the subject.
"But if you are waiting for Associated Press, BBC, Bloomberg or Reuters to criticize their own use of the labels, then you will be waiting a long time." Unfrotunately, that is how Wikipedia works, like it or not. We rely on those reliable sources. Certainly, with time, things will improve as more academic and scholarly sources will be available and there will be a clearer consensus on Milei's positions, and as time will also tell which direction Milei will take and if there will be any changes.
I would not call them reputable because they are not exactly indepedent. Rallo is also a minarchist economist and the Cato Institute, which ironically supports the fact that Milei is anti-abortion, is a libertarian think tank, so of course they disagree with the far-right label but that does not make it due criticism, especially when we do not state it as fact. It would be like using another communist/socialist/whatever economist or communist/socialist/whatever organizations to argue that the communist/socialist/whatever subject is not what eveyone else is describing them like. It just is not an independent source, it becomes a partisan question. If this is reported by other reliable sources, that is great! But until then, we should not give them undue weight without better and more substantiated sourcing. As an encyclopedia, we cannot put everything or all opinions.
As long as we do not prioritize any label over the other and do not state them as fact, there is no need to mention criticism, unless reliable sources also start stating things like "Some have questioned the far-right label to describe Milei's politics". Again, as someone who has been here for many years and as a result has read many sources and saw their evolution, I would not be surprised this to happen to Milei too and reliable sources saying that. But it needs to happen first. Davide King (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"unless reliable sources also start stating things like "Some have questioned the far-right label to describe Milei's politics"."
Do we have any example in history where the press of the western world -- who is owned by liberal jews -- have ever tried to give alternative view? I will assume you are not being sarcastic, as you are presumed to be in good-will. You can cite a few articles so I can perhaps agree on this issue with you. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Did you literally just engaed in an antisemitic canard about Jews controlling the world, including the pres? Davide King (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Instead of using NEWS ORGANIZATIONS who hire people trained to report NEWS and not to identify, define or simply recognize ideologies, wouldn't be appropriate and according to human basic common sense simply find opinionated articles by people who are capable of identifying, defining and recognizing ideologies ?
Simply copy and paste a news article and using it as a source is not only incorrect but dangerous, since the main page is already creating words, mixing up definitions and transforming political science into meme war. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Please note that reliable sources are described by Wikipedia as;
- Mainly only "secondary sources" except for quotations
- Quotations should use "primary sources" only or by exception "reliable secondary sources" that should contain the reference to the "primary source"
- Opinion pieces/articles should always include who stated the opinion, also including opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. That includes editorials, columns and op-eds, and opinions of the newspaper/magazine are also opinions, they are not always classified under an opinion heading. Opinions have a lower standard for being qualified, they are reliable as the opinion of the author, but nothing else, and should never state facts.
- Breaking news should be avoided as they often contain serious inaccuracies; see Wikipedia:Recentism
- Headlines and subheadlines are not reliable sources, only use body content
- Biased and opinionated sources are welcome
- Reliability depends on context, avoid any statement of fact that is not backed by all the reliable sources.
- Reliable newspapers frequently state both facts and opinions, it should be clear which is what.
I think we can say that the article in the current form is not anywhere close to these standards. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Lets list some problems;
"Many of the people drawn in by Milei are right-wingers who are attracted to his anti-leftist and opposition to government policies, including legalizing abortion and creating a quota for trans people in government jobs."
This is written in a section that has nothing to do with the topic. The sentence makes statements of facts, when its an opinion article. It also does not add anything to the article, as these topics have already been covered in the article. This is also quite an accusation and generalization which is doubtfully true. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion. Controversial were his opposition to abortion in rape cases"
Mentioned above. This is misleading. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"his rejection of the inclusion of comprehensive sex education in schools"
His opposition is specifically towards a state defined program, mandated by law, filled with moral positions which there are differing opinions on. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"'Many of the people drawn in by Milei are right-wingers who are attracted to his anti-leftist and opposition to government policies, including legalizing abortion and creating a quota for trans people in government jobs.' This is written in a section that has nothing to do with the topic."
  • This is written within the context of his anti-leftism/anti-communism. It is not an opinion piece but it is an ordinary news article by The Economist. By this standard, we could not state something as fact that is stated by a fact in a news article (not opinion piece) by a reputable news organization just because it looks like an opinion. It is not even controversial or weird, it is natural that it is mainly right-wingers, and not leftists, who are attracted by his political positions.
"'Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion. Controversial were his opposition to abortion in rape cases' Mentioned above. This is misleading."
  • Repeating a thing one hundred times will not make it true. Straight from the horse's mouth: "Why is one crime [rape] compensated with another crime [abortion]? ... Just because something is legal, it does not mean that it is legitimate. I am against it (the Voluntary and Legal Interruption of Pregnancy Bill) because it is against the right to life. ... At least I would hold a referendum. And, if the result is in my favor, the law is eliminated. But let the Argentines choose. Let's see if the Argentines believe in the murder of a defenseless human in the womb of the mother." But sure, he is pro-abortion, not anti-abortion!
"'his rejection of the inclusion of comprehensive sex education in schools' His opposition is specifically towards a state defined program, mandated by law, filled with moral positions which there are differing opinions on."
  • His opposition to this is based on a conspiracy theory that the government, or Cultural Marxists, brainwash children ("'In my government, there is not going to be cultural Marxism,' Milei stressed. ... The libertarian leader also stressed public education was "brainwashing.'"). This is no different from Republicans and the critical race theory strawman.
Davide King (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • This is written within the context of his anti-leftism/anti-communism. It is not an opinion piece but it is an ordinary news article by The Economist. By this standard, we could not state something as fact that is stated by a fact in a news article (not opinion piece) by a reputable news organization just because it looks like an opinion. It is not even controversial or weird, it is natural that it is mainly right-wingers, and not leftists, who are attracted by his political positions.
Reliable newspapers frequently state both facts and opinions, it should be clear which is what. I don't think we can simply include whatever we find from websites of reputable news organization, and state them as facts. The statement is clearly an opinionated statement, and it does not refer to any sources to back up its claim. It also does not make any sense, as half of his voters come from Frente de Todos, the "hard left" in Argentina. He got the most votes in nearly every province that previously was dominated by Frente de Todos, among the few provinces he didnt get the most votes was in Buenos Aires, the stronghold of the right. The statement is not supported by any reliable source as fact, and is unlikely to be true. He attracted a lot of voters from both sides of the political spectrum in Argentina, and he does not appeal more to one or the other.
On abortion we keep copying the same phrases over and over, but the actual topic of discussion is being avoided. Lets discuss in the other thread.
  • His opposition to this is based on a conspiracy theory that the government, or Cultural Marxists, brainwash children ("'In my government, there is not going to be cultural Marxism,' Milei stressed. ... The libertarian leader also stressed public education was "brainwashing.'"). This is no different from Republicans and the critical race theory strawman.
Well, its not exactly a conspiracy theory as this happens in broad daylight, its not a secret that children are being taught ESI in Argentina? That would be a strawman, and missing point, which is that its coercion involved, the children are required by law to attend these classes. If this was inverted, and these classes were teaching things (i assume) you oppose, like racism, anti-abortion propaganda, and discrimination, you would call this brainwashing too. The libertarian position is clear here, you should not impose anything on anyone by force, that is the core of the problem. If a group of people wants to practice communism within the framework of a libertarian society, there is nothing preventing that, as long as its voluntary! Being a minarchist, it would be unheard of for Milei to be opposing that, he is opposing the use of coercion and force, where everyone are required to comply. We are all different, we should not be required to think, act and be the same, and pluralism and tolerance are some of the most important libertarian values. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"and he does not appeal more to one or the other"? I guess you missed the part where he named social decmoracy and anything left of it as enemies? Anyway, I was the one to add precisely the part where he got votes from Peronists but the cited sources say they represent a vote of protest and that may not share his economic views. In fact, all of this is irrelevant, because our wording does not even say that his supporters come only from the right, just that one of the reasons of his appeal for many rightists is anti-leftistim/anti-communism. If the wording were saying he got only support from the right, you may have a point but the wording, and the reason why it is in that section, is precisely to discuss his appeal to the right, while his appeal to Peronists is more appropriately cited in the section that discuss his primary results, since it was considered an upset and to do that he had to win over Peronist voters.
No one denies that children are being taught ESI in Argentina, what is being denied is that ESI is used to turn children into transgenders (or communists), that ESI (or Cultural Marxism) is used as a propganda in that sense, that is the conspiracy theory. Do you really think that telling children to not hate LGBT people or not to discriminate other children based on their skin or other differences would be the same as telling children that is fine to discriminate them? That may well be the libertarian argument Milei is using but it is not a really good one.
So if the doctor tells the patients to do something for their health, like taking a specific medicine, is that coercion? I assume you would say that is not coercion, as long as the patient "voluntary" agrees to it. But then all vaccines and medicines are coercion if the people refuse to take them because they do not believe doctors. It is way too broad. It is one thing to be sceptcal of authority and oppose authoritarianism, it is a wholly other to oppose school programs under the guise of "brainwashing". So I wonder why it is always a program related to race and gender that they oppose? Do they not oppose programs about past history and colonialism, for example, that also rely on propaganda? See, it goes both ways...
It looks like you actually agree with him, so no wonder you think this article is biased and not neutral. The mere fact you consider Frente de Todos "hard-left", when they do include far-left groups but is considered a centre-left to left-wing coalition, just like Juntos por el Cambio is considered centre-right to right-wing, with centrist and right-wing factions, is telling. I do not know if you wrote that (the voluntary part and minarchist part) because it is what you believe in or you were writing from the POV of Milei's position. If from the former, it puts in questions your neutrality (of course, you think the article is biased if you share the subject's views); if from the latter, I am already well aware of Milei's POV and I understand his position and from where is coming from. That is why I proposed a counter-point of it and why, also basing myself of what reliable sources have said, his opposition to ESI is questionable and "Cultural Marxism" is considered a conspiracy theory. His opposition to ESI may also be linked to "Cultural Marxism" if he sees both as examples of brainwashing, which would indeed be examples of brainwashing if they were true, but they are not (per reliable sources). There are no "Cultural Marxists" brainwashing children into becoming transgenders or communists.
"and pluralism and tolerance are some of the most important libertarian values". Indeed, and those are the epitome of anti-racism. So why would someone consider teaching anti-racism a form of propaganda? Again, do you really think that teaching racism and teaching anti-racism are the same thing just because of coercion? The first is propaganda, which is also based on falsity, the second is simply stating scientific facts that there are no superior races or things like that, that we may be different but we all have equal worth. If you think, like Republicans in the United States, that "anti-racism" is an euphemism for "Cultural Marxism" and that rather than teaching anti-racism, they are teaching "Cultural Marxism", that is a conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not aware of there being any criticism against the LGBT community, race, gender, or any such thing. That would be anti libertarian. Where is this coming from? Have you ever heard of a racist libertarian? To me that sounds like a contradiction, and if that is true of Milei, it would be a much bigger scandal than being named far-right.
As far as i know, there are disagreements on the content in ESI and the way that morals are being taught. You mention anti-racism, how is that different from pluralism and tolerance which is what Milei promotes? I think the point is that you don't want anyone who disagrees with you to force their values on you, regardless of what they are. I listed some examples I'm sure you would protest loudly against to illustrate that. If you lived in Saudi Arabia, these problems would be very real, and you would not enjoy being a minority in Saudi Arabia. This also applies the other way, people who disagree with you will go to great lengths to fight against any morals you impose on them. This is the case of Milei. At the moment he represents a minority, but a very vocal minority that is growing, and the ideas are spreading. I doubt its a good idea to be oppress these ideas, that only creates extremism, or in the case of Milei it caused an increase in voters, ideas should be discussed in the open.
The question is who decides what is right and wrong, and what if you are on the oppressed side? Should you be forced against your will? If you oppose what is being taught in history and colonialism, why should you be forced to attend? And who decides what should be taught in these classes? What if the class is whitewashing history in favor of one side of the story? Forced vaccination is indeed a similar problems, but voluntary vaccination works fine in many countries?
I must say I find your reaction to "hard-left" amusing. As I mentioned before, i think these terms are nonsense, and i thought we agreed everything was to be defined as either "hard-left" or "far-right"? As far as neutrality goes, i doubt anyone of us can claim neutrality here and we are all biased. Lets not get into an argument about that, its not constructive. For the record, i am not a minarchist, and i have plenty of disagreements with Milei, but i propose we stick to the arguments. I do not support distortions, things should be presented plain and clear. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
That's good, let's stick to arguments. Well, about homosexuality, he gave two conflicting statements. On one hand, he claearly stated that the way in which sexuality is lived "is a personal choice. ... I don't agree at all that homosexuality is a disease." On the other hand, he said: "If you decide to be homosexual, how does that affect my life? In nothing. My liberty? In nothing. My property? In nothing. Therefore, I have nothing to say." The first part may imply he believes that homosexuality is a choice, which is contrary to the scientific facts and consensus about it. This cannot possibili attributed to an error of translation on my part, as the source is in English. Similarty, about gender, he compared it to identifying as a cougar (not the slang but the animal); this is a strawman argument that is, in fact, adopted by those opposed to transgdener rights or gender identity (like those making the strawman argument of identifying as elicopthers or aliens), because transgender people identify as male, female, or others but still within the context of humanity, not that nonsense like cougars, elicopthers, or aliens... In fact, there have been discussion of "fascist libertarians", precisely to refer to those who were either racist, came from the far right or alt right, or used the libertarian arguemnt "Do whatever you want" as an excuse to be oppressive. See "The Libertarianism-to-Fascism Pipeline", "The Alt-Right: Neoliberalism, Libertarianism and the Fascist Temptation" ("Instead, the alt-right claims intellectual descent from economic libertarianism"), "Libertarians have more in common with the alt-right than they want you to think", "The Libertarian Party Goes Alt-Right", "'Weeping Nazi' Christopher Cantwell went from libertarian to fascist — and he's not alone", "Why Libertarians Go Alt-Right", "Right-libertarianism and the Alternative Right", "Does libertarianism have an alt-right problem?", "The Insidious Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline", "It's time to create a libertarian ecosystem that doesn't welcome racists", etc.
Again, I think that you may be missing some context. This argument is flawed precisely because it is used by oppressors, such as avowed racists, to falsely imply that anti-racism oppresses them. This is like saying we must support fascists or those who would take away our rights. Yes, free speech is a thing, and they may be allowed to spout their nonsense but then they should not be crying if schools teach things that I hope everyone would agree, like not being a racist and be respectful of other people's gender, race, religion views, etc. This is precisely the argument used by countries like Saudi Arabia, that we cannot criticize their human rights abuses because they have to right to do so and we are the ones who are being "oppressive" in a clear example of victim blaming.
For the record, I respect all cultures, but saying that anti-racism or feminism (again, I am using anti-racism and feminism to simply mean opposition to discrimination and support for gender equality, no second meanings because I certainly do not support accusing someone of racism when they are not) oppress them is like saying "Listen, we do not respect minority rights, we do not respect women's rights. And if you want to respect those rights, then it is who is being oppressive!" Teaching anti-racism or stuff that promotes pluralism and respect for human rights in schools would not suddently turn us into a reverse Saudi Arabia. It would not be oppressive the same way.
Indeed. But I don't see people complain about how colonialism is teached or how history is teached. In fact, I have seen the opposite, where they criticize changes that did not whitewash their colonialist past. Instead, they complain about sexual education as if children will be turned into LGBT people through propaganda... Again, this takes us back to what I said above. It is one thing not to support extreme moral universalism but extreme moral relativism is another thing. Teaching anti-rascism and sexual edication is not a matter of right or wrong, when there are scientific facts and consensus that clearly state there are no superior races and that LGBT people are born this way. The argument you used makes more sense for things like history or that of colonialism, where it is more borderline and where propaganda is much more likely, rather than ESI. Of course, if one opposes public education, they would see anything that is teached as a form of propaganda but that looks to be a radical since public education is widespread adopted.
So to answer your question, "who decides what is right and wrong", one possibile answer is the scientists who say that racism is wrong and not supported by facts, that there are no superior races, and that LGBT people are born this way, not out of a personal choice they made. "What if you are on the oppressed side?" Those on the oppressed side are those who suffer dicrimination, certainly not avowed racists or anti-LGBT. Of course, there are people who are accused of racism or of being anti-LGBT, and in some cases that may not be accurate. But avowed racists or anti-LGBT people are not victims of oppression, they are the oppressor.
Again, in regards to history and colonialism, that is more complicated, because they answer may be "the historians" but bias is more likely to happen and history itself is a matter of interpretation, so that is a situation where I may agree with your argument; it is not like racism where there are scientific facts that disprove it. In short, that argument is basically an argument against all public education. Because by that argument, indeed everything that is teached is propapaganda because it is the government or the relevant ministry to decide what is teached at school. Again, I agree that certain things and form of it are a form of propaganda but I do not think that applies to anti-racism or ESI. I do not think that teaching anti-racism or that LGBT people are born this way, not out of choice, and thus they do not deserve to be discriminated against, is propaganda – it is simply teaching uncontroversial scientific facts that may "oppress" only avowed racists and anti-LGBT people who feel "oppressed" because they cannot accept those facts and cannot accept they fact they should not discriminate against people due to their ethnicity or sexuality, among other things.
As a provocation, has Milei asked the children or students whether they feel oppressed by ESI? If ESI only promotes one type of sexual education, such as abstinence, I would agree with Milei but that does not appear to be the case. Davide King (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure, you will have all combinations of people, and all kinds of labels being used, my point was that this would be a confusion.
I think the wording is indeed ambiguous, but his opposition and criticism are in all cases I've seen, directed towards the coercive aspects. E.g. according to Chequeado, his political program is not to end ESI, its to eliminate the compulsory aspect of ESI (eliminar la obligatoriedad). This is in line with the libertarian position at least.
https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/elecciones-paso-2023-esto-proponen-los-precandidatos-presidenciales-sobre-genero/
The main opposition is to a centralized curriculum, as states use it to promote their agenda, whatever it may be. I'm only using Saudia Arabia as an example of how this is being used to oppress the population, because in this case its very clear. I think we can agree that public education can be used maliciously. Milei wants to decentralize, to prevent this being possible. You would then get a "gaussian distribution", with minorities in both ends teaching questionable things, instead of everyone being shifted in one direction or the other. You could have laws that prevent racism etc from being taught.
The question seems to be if Milei is using the libertarian argument as a strawman. I cant find anything in any sources that indicates that directly. The arguments become very circular, where everyone are blaming each other for using strawman arguments?
I couldn't find any sources where Milei goes in depth on ESI, but criticism from elsewhere is directed towards how things are being presented. E.g. presenting women very favorably, and men being ridiculed in the same stories, including pro femininity and anti masculinity content amongst other things (im paraphrasing here). It seems like a lot of people are objecting, i don't have any statistics for that, but it seems very odd for this to be related to racism or discrimination. Its strong disagreement with the way things are being taught. Milei then adds his position, to decentralize the curriculum, so he is certainly using this to his favor on that topic. He then attacks these things as being socialist ideologies, and Cultural Marxism, and that is indeed his style, its a very aggressive approach.
Not sure using the term conspiracy theory applies here, besides the reference to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. It does not seem this is what Milei is referencing to either. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I have added the mention of ESI's compulsion to the body but you may need to disscuss the lead with the other IP who added the verification tags to your proposed wording. We may reach a compromise to say in the lead he "criticized" rather than "opposed" in regards to ESI, so as to not give the impression he oppose it on principle but for what he regards as its complusary nature. I have now also added a "Libertarianism" section, so I hope that we can soon remove the NPOV tag. Davide King (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Journalism is an industry and the news organizations are pro profit they are not involved with scientific definitions in regards to ideology. Hitler was praised by the majority of press in USA and Britain, then he became an enemy, etc. I don't think any of you are capable of understanding the simple fact that using terms defined by the dynamic framework of power (i.e news politics) is not only absurd but contrary to wikipedia itself, otherwise we would have to edit Stalin page and describe him as a fascist libertarian, Hitler becomes a neoliberal socialist and so on. I'm not sure if 10 months from now you will understand the problem of language and the dynamics of power involved. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
You are just making a bunch of strawmans and slipper slopes. Personally, I would avoid using news sources and only use the best academic ones. But WP:NEWSORGS are allowed and as in cases like this, where there is a rise in popolarity and the subjects becomes a current event, they are the best to build an article. With years, as better quality, more academic sources come out, the article would be edited accordingly. Davide King (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I added a source, and reworded it slightly to natural English. The source is very clear on this, and a word-for-word translation to English becomes a bit odd. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Ref also this revert;
This article is a BLP and must be "written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm trying to make sure we don't give a false representation of the combination of sources. This includes avoiding cherry picking of sources to fit a narrative, and checking they are not contradicting each other.
The article should not contain any editorial interpretation, which is not backed up by sources directly. The undisputed facts and content should speak for itself.
The edit that was reverted contained cases where the criteria for a reliable source failed. Better sources should be included for those parts, as there may be articles that provide useful reflection of this, rather than just random headlines. Readers should have access to those. Please note specifically;
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." 193.69.198.165 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, they were pedantic because in most cases there were no issues of verification. For example, it is not true, as you claimed, that Milei did not support dollarization. Or in the case of The Economist, where it literally says "owing in no small part to his radically conservative economic and social policies". Also please keep in mind that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and does not even require citations, as long as they are cited later on in the body (WP:MOSLEAD). I keept the sources in the lead precisely to avoid those issues. Perhaps I may have put a source when I should have put another one that more strongly supported that wording. The important thing is that all this is supported by the body and I think it is.
As for the NPOV tag, it is not necessary that one user feels the article is not neutral, there must be at least a real issue and a significant number of users supporting the tag. As of now, I see neither of the two. In fact, one IP on the Spanish Wikipedia considered this one to be neutral! And @7szz thanked me for my reverts. You complain of the far right label even though we do not describe him as far right, we only say he has been described as such by a significant number of reliable sources; I think it would be great if they better explained why they consider him far right but I think they do, and is not limited to a headline. This explains why he is called far right. I have also added this to address NPOV issues.
What more is needed exactly? Davide King (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The dollarization claim is already shown to be inaccurate, it is about getting rid of the central bank, no about dollarization specifically. Amongst others, you can see the Bloomberg interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqq3zDW6E0&ab_channel=BloombergTelevision Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Please, actually cite the proper minute and everything. If ones search on Google, the results are totally different to what you say. Besides, it would not be the first time that a politician flip flopped on an issue but I would wait for something more than a single interview (I am still waiting to what he actually said and a link that is not from YouTube to use as a cite) to act as though Milei never proposed dollarization. Davide King (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Its not a flip-flop, he wants to close the central bank, thats it. This de-facto leads to dollarization, but there is no law that will require anyone to use dollars. There are indeed many articles that insist he wants to dollarize, but it is only indirectly because nearly everyone in Argentina uses dollars already, so it could just as well have been euros or crypto for that matter;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqq3zDW6E0&t=24s&ab_channel=BloombergTelevision Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
So where is the issue when even you concede that the abolition of the Central Bank of Argentina would de facto lead to dollariazion? Again, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, in particular this: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This is what you have been doing this whole time, you have argued about what Milei and his primary sources said; ultimately, what matters is what secondary sources say and how they interpret them for us. Even the use of primary sources is preferable (though not prohibited) through secondary sources, e.g. an interview or something Milei said being reported by a secondary reliable source, rather than Milei's own website or the primary source itself. Davide King (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The article is full of interpretations not found in the secondary sources, and the attempt of removing these were reverted by you?
It has nothing to do with interpretation of primary sources, but basic fact checking of secondary sources. The article should use "greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". See Wikipedia:BESTSOURCES. We have so many sources to pick from, why is the article using bad ones everywhere, to capture snippets of controversial phrases? E.g. articles that don't contain primary source references are worse sources in comparison to articles that do.
Then the statement "His proposed abolition of the Central Bank of Argentina and dollarization have met criticism" is not supported by the source, this is literally an interpretation of the article, its not using statements from the article. The primary source in this case is Mark Sobel, and the article uses an interpretation of what he says not found in the source. Lets be consistent here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The proposed abolition of the central bank is itself a WP:FRINGE view outside mainstream economics. Again, you are missing the fact that the lead is summarizing the body (WP:MOSLEAD, and in fact may not have any cite as long as it is sourced in the body), where other refs support that same wording. For example, the criticism is mentioned at Demoliendo mitos and economic work. We also include a response from Milei about some of this criticism. Davide King (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
If he still proposed it, the criticism remains valid and we cannot act like he never proposed it. If he changed his mind, please provide a proper source and link to what he actually said, and a secondary source in support of this to establish that it was a notable change, as it should be if what you said is true. Davide King (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I have added this article to the NPOV noticeboard here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Javier_Milei Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

One person is editing too much

User:Davide King should take a 30 day vacation from editing the main article

Mreittmet2 (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Davide King (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
you clearly need to stop using this page as your blog. wikipedia is contribution by everybody not by 1 user Flilllcn (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I forgot to point out that User:Davide King has said numerous times things like "This Newspaper cannot be accused of X bias" using his own personal opinion. If X or Y source can be accused of having or not having a bias, he should try to focus on the article not what he thinks. He has also been defining which centrist newspapers should be allowed[sic] based on his arbitrary opinion, that is, according to his own personal preference.
My suggestion is that he create a personal website or; write an article for an international journal of humanities and post the article here or; post his opinion "op-ed" in some news website and perhaps use a source here, so his personal opinion can be discussed by everyone.
User:Femke User:Newyorkbrad
Thanks Flilllcn (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
You clearly misinterprated what I was said. Your likely reference is to a piece by The Economist, which is considered a reliable source not by my but at the WP:RSP. I was saying that even The Economist, which shares Milei's economic liberalism, cannot avoid his controversies. Or when you guys complained about the far-right label, which was even used by the right-wing The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal. You talk about me owning this article, yet your edits were reverted by @Uniru288. Davide King (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Uniru288 has been banned for edit waring in the past. This user reverts things as a hobby. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Main summary of Milei’s page severely undue

@Davide King: You have to fix this, I’ve not read one page in my years of Wikipedia that has a main summary (front page) of only political positions and starts with "politicially", it seems severly undue as I haven’t seen this in any page and if you insist I name them, I’ll be glad to give you a list of politicians GA articles. His biography (childhood, any scandals, what school he went to etc), political career (what he has done in congress, party) is just as important to be included on the front page summary. I’ll be glad to bring in other experienced users to take a look at this if you insist only 100% of his political positions should be the main page and nothing else. I was shocked how such an experienced editor like you haven’t done anything to fix this when you’ve been on the page for weeks now. BastianMAT (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There are also parts that make me question the neutrality of this article, for example a section says like this "due to his radical economic policies, the Argentine peso plunged as a result of his primaries win", with the source AP, however AP never mentions it was due to this radical economic policies which makes it [[WP:OR]] unless you actually state a source that explicity mentions it was due to his economic policies..and more usage of academic content would definitely make the article more reliable. BastianMAT (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I also see the usage of several Spanish sources, very many for a lot of critique and "crazy statements of Milei". But none of these are actually [[WP:RS]] verified which adds more doubt such as El Perfil, Clarin, El Debate, Chequeado, Il Post, Primera Fuente, and others…how do we know it is reliable by Wikipedia standards? As from my country, all newsoutlets have an political orientation, so early in school you learn being self-critical of sources to understand how neutral they are on a topic is important. Other things include, [[WP:OVERKILL]] when reading the far-right, there is no reason to include 20 sources backing it up, 3 reliable sources are definitely enough if you’re not already trying to kill it. I’d definitely want someone to look into the neutrality of this article, but I want to hear if you can ease my concerns. BastianMAT (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Please, see WP:RSUE. Considering that Milei is not British or from an English-language country, it should come to no surprise that Spanish-language sources are allowed, in line with Wikipedia's guidlines. In fact, many of those sources are from es.wiki and many others have been added by other IPs or users, such as Pedantic Aristotle (formerly an IP), because they complained about the lack of primary sources about Milei. Many others have also been added because they wanted to add sources that did not use the far-right label like the great majority of English-language reliable sources did (even The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal used the label). Now just because you think they report Milei making "crazy statements", it does not mean they are not reliable. In fact, if you read the article, the sources, and articles about the subject, you will realize that making "crazy statements" is part of Milei's personality, and have been confirmed by Milei's himself, and no one complained that he did not say that. Just recently, a biography literally called El Loco ("The Madman"), which is also one of his nicknames, was released.
"Other things include, WP:OVERKILL when reading the far-right, there is no reason to include 20 sources backing it up, 3 reliable sources are definitely enough if you're not already trying to kill it. I'd definitely want someone to look into the neutrality of this article, but I want to hear if you can ease my concerns."
  • Again, tell that to the IPs who complained about it and even added a verification tag because apparently they were not enough!1 In fact, my rule is no more than three inline citations at once, so I do not understand what you are complaining about, perhaps the part where we list the many news outlets that described him as far right or radical right? As I said, that should soon be moot, as that will be moved to a new article specifically dedicated to his political positions, since there is enough sourcing and notability to make it its own.
If it were for me, I would not have any source in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, which does not require them, as long as everything is sourced in the body) but then other users would complain or add citation needed tags; I think sources should be in the lead when building the article and then hopefully removed when the article gets better and there are no serious disputes. In fact, I am having a discussion at WP:DRN about this and the tag bombing that forced me to add further sources just to show that the article is reflecting them. Davide King (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
On Spanish, this is necessary unfortunately, there are way too few sources in English.
Other than that, I completely agree with you. To me it looks like the strategy has not been to write the best article possible, but rather find as much dirt as possible. Any criticism is met with endless walls of text, and rules being cited. To be honest i find it very hard to collaborate and find agreement with this approach, so i opened the Dispute on this as mentioned. Unfortunately it seems my attempts are misinterpreted as mal-intentioned, but I assume we will find some common understanding soon.
Considering how certain people strongly disagrees with Javier Milei, I'm not surprised by this approach. From my perspective I have not found much willingness to write a balanced article, only in the very obvious cases where no arguments against it could be found.
The editors are likely not familiar with Javier Milei in depth, they are just basing things off any reliable sources they can find. This is not a good approach, but my critique of this is simply attacked as being against policy. Any help here will be appreciated, so far I've found at least 30 cases of obviously misleading content, but I'm awaiting the ongoing dispute process before progressing. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
To build the article, I have read so many sources about Milei that I am pretty sure that is not WP:OR precisely because he is considered radical (even The Economist, which supports several of his economic policies, considers him a radical) and that wording is supported by the sources, otherwhise why do you think the Argentine peso plunged, among others, as a result of his primaries win? I know that the article is very big, but if you keep digging, you would see that it is due to his radicalism and the serious possibility of a win that it plunged. Davide King (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is one example of too many liberties being taken in interpretation. Please reflect a bit, as you are accusing others of WP:OR. The peso plunged because this was already agreed between IMF and Massa before the election. Even "La Izquierda Diario" is on Milei's side on this;
https://www.laizquierdadiario.com/Lo-que-no-dijo-en-campana-Massa-devaluo-y-subio-un-22-el-dolar-tras-los-resultados-de-las-PASO
https://www.lapoliticaonline.com/economia/el-central-anuncia-una-devaluacion-del-22-y-fija-el-dolar-oficial-en-350-hasta-octubre Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think reliable sources are not so clear about it but the AP literally headlined: "Argentine peso plunges after rightist who admires Trump comes first in primary vote", so they made the connection, not me. In fact, the AP says that "Argentina's government decided to devalue the local currency by 20% early Monday morning after the surprising Sunday showing."
This is the main problem. You want to make the lead more wordly than it already is. If you check the body, you see that this devaluation is already cited ("while the official dollar exchange rate rose by 20%, and the Central Bank of Argentina raised interest rates.") I am not even sure I wrote that part you are referring to. That paragraph you are actively contesting (the one about his controversies) was first written by @Regurn36 (see diff), not me. I will check if the contested wording you are citing was written by me. Davide King (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This is exactly why we need proper sources, not just headlines and articles without any clarifications, and why we need to be cautious with writing things as fact, and instead use attribution. After we reach consensus, and its undisputed, we can remove attribution.
When even "La Izquierda Diario", a Trotskyist newspaper, calls this deception in support of Milei, what more is needed to convince you?
There is usually more to these stories than what's presented in these news articles, and we should showcase all these aspects we can find, not hide them. If presenting all the important aspects makes the lead too long, then we can not include it in the lead, as the topic is too complex for it. Its a much bigger problem leaving inaccurate statements undisputed. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
You may be right but the WP:LEAD is to summarize and be concise (hence why we are never going to have in the lead: "According to The Economist, Milei has expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. However, Milei himself has been vaccinated for COVID-19 and clarified, 'I am not anti-vaccination, I am pro-vaccination.'"), but there is the body to go in greater detail, and once the Political positions of Javier Milei is created, there will be plenty of space to focus on the subject's life and career. You continue to dismiss reliable sources for not liking what they say or disagreeing with their own interpretations. See "Who is Javier Milei, Argentina's right-wing presidential front-runner?" by The Washington Post.
What do you expect us to rely on if you do not provide any better, scholarly, non-news sources? "When even 'La Izquierda Diario', a Trotskyist newspaper, calls this deception in support of Milei, what more is needed to convince you?" The difference being that when I referenced The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal as right-wing sources that used the far-right label, I did so because they are both considered generally reliable (WP:RSP). Davide King (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Great, then lets not include all sorts of disputed statements in the lead, and leave those for the body, where full context can be given to each subject? Including such statements in the lead will only cause constant dispute, it is to nobody's benefit, neither is it useful for the reader to get half the story.
Can you be specific when you say i dismiss reliable sources, because i disagree with them? If you are referring to chinese whispers, this is not a dismissal, but to illustrate the problem. Each person will have a slightly different interpretation, and when you go further away from the original source, things are distorted more. We just need to deal with that, meaning we need to be careful of restating things factually, unless its clear and undisputed. I'm not aware of having made a single edit proposal that was not backed by a source, discussions on the Talk page is a different story, where the purpose is to elaborate.
As i said before, news sources that include the primary source and e.g. an article that provide commentary on an interview, fact checking websites and so on i would consider better sources, compared to headline news articles. Your Washington Post example is one of the better articles, but why not use the same secondary sources they used? Why add another layer when we have 270 sources, including sources describing each topic in even greater detail?
The criticism on far-right, which quite many people are doing, not just me, is that these articles are not including any content on this label, its just a headline, or the first sentence in the intro. Thats it. Please check all the sources, i could not find a single WP:INLINECITE that used far-right beyond superficially (headline, subheadline or intro paragraph). It certainly warrants inclusion, but why do you think so many people are protesting? E.g. take a look how the Spanish article does it;
  • Comúnmente es definido por medios de comunicación internacionales como un político de extrema derecha,​ en tanto que medios nacionales argentinos y consultores políticos de ese país lo describen como de «derecha libertaria».
  • He is commonly defined by international media as a far-right politician, while Argentine national media and political consultants from that country describe him as 'libertarian right.'
Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
"Great, then lets not include all sorts of disputed statements in the lead, and leave those for the body, where full context can be given to each subject."
  • Not if you are referring to the last paragraph of the lead. What is there to dispute? "Opposition to abortion in rape cases" (this is a fact acknowleded by Milei himself, and we now also have the above paragraph contextualizing this), "his view of comprehensive sex education in schools as a form of brainwashing" (I now have quotes from Milei himself saying that it is part of a "post-Marxist agenda" and a ploy leading to the "destruction of the most important social nucleus, the family"; you may disagree with the way secondary sources report on this but, as noted by Aleaxis, "secondary sources are entitled to make their own interpretations, so the fact that they don't use the same words as Milei himself does not disqualify them"), skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines (also a fact, and we do not say "anti-vaccination"; the fact he vaccinated, mainly because he felt like he had to as to make his travel to discuss his politics he had to be vaccinated, does not cancel out his skepticism according to secondary sources; now it is also not limited by The Economist, as the sources that reported his vaccination noted the fact that Milei was skeptic about COVID-19 vaccines), civilian firearm ownership support (as Argentina has no "right to bear arms" in the constitution, this wording is appropriate), legalization of organ trade (same thing for abortion), promotion of the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (we discussed this to death and now we have quotes from Milei himself using "neo-Marxists" and "post-Marxists" as an euphemism for the conspiracy theory), and climate change denial (we now have a reliable source that explicitily called him a "climate denier"; when someone says that climate change is "a socialist lie" and that concerns about it are invention of "neo-Marxists", they are denying climate change). So where is the issue?
"Can you be specific when you say i dismiss reliable sources, because i disagree with them?" Yes, I was referring to your "Chinese whispers" comments.
"As i said before, news sources that include the primary source and e.g. an article that provide commentary on an interview, fact checking websites and so on i would consider better sources, compared to headline news articles." Do you mean like this one, which includes two videos from Milei? Well, no source is obligated to provide them. As noted by Aleaxis, "Since EIU is part of the Economist Group, with the Economist itself considered reliable, I think we can presume it's reliable unless proven otherwise." Additionally, one of the necessary criteria for a source to be consider reliable is that they have editorial policies constiency with fact-checking. So when the Associated Press writes: "He believes selling human organs should be legal, climate change is a 'socialist lie,' sex education is a ploy to destroy the family and that the Central Bank should be abolished. He also could be Argentina's next president." That has been fact-checked because the Associated Press includes fact-checking and all the necessary ctiteria to be considered a reliable source. They do not need to do like us where they have to provide another source, a video, or a reference next to their inlines.
"The criticism on far-right, which quite many people are doing, not just me, is that these articles are not including any content on this label, its just a headline, or the first sentence in the intro."
"He is commonly defined by international media as a far-right politician, while Argentine national media and political consultants from that country describe him as 'libertarian right.'"
  • This is wrong because there are many Argentine and Spanish-language sources who described him as ultra-derecha ("far-right"). Anyway, if you are fine with that wording, why do you complain about ours? We say the same thing but make no distinction between English and Spanish sources because both of them have used far right, ultraconservative, and right-wing libertarian; we simply avoid stating the obvious that this description comes from international reputable news sources.
Davide King (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Not if you are referring to last paragraph of the lead. What is there to dispute?
As BastianMAT said, please check any WP:GA political biography on Wikipedia. Where will you find a list like this? The dispute is that you are saying we are unable to add context to the lead, so then we move it to the body. Don't present details you are not going to present all significant aspects to, so either say nothing about it, be unspecific so user needs to read the body, or provide sufficient context in the lead. As i said, the current approach only causes constant dispute, it is to nobody's benefit, neither is it useful for the reader to get half the story.
  • Do you mean like this one, which includes two videos from Milei?
Believe it or not, but yes, this is much better than news articles without any sources, because these sources you can actually trace, find alternative sources for, and then provide multiple perspectives and discussions on. You say reliable sources do fact-checking, the problem is that its impossible for us to fact check them, when they have no information about their source. This means we can not create any meaningful content from these, as there is nothing to discuss or dispute, the only thing we can verify is that the source made this statement. Which is why; in-text attribute is required. We have sources discussing the exact same topics in detail, with actual useful information in them, why are we not using those? These headline news articles are just lists of factual claims, I don't see how it contributes to a useful Wikipedia article, maybe with exception as background sources, just not for content. Adding an attribute list like we do for far-right in the body is not very interesting content, its fine to include it just for reference, but i doubt it adds much value for a reader.
  • That is not true. Al Jazeera includes "far-right populist" also in the text, as does SWI swissinfo.ch
The far-right label is only included in the introduction, superficially. There is no further discussion, description or content on this label or an article with substance about the term far-right. As we are having a lot of disputes on the English talk page on this, there does not seem to be any consensus which is the correct approach. Its also unclear to me which parts that user was referring to in the English article.
  • This is wrong because there are many Argentine and Spanish-language sources who described him as ultra-derecha
Well according to my investigation, the Argentinian media makes commentary about Spanish media using the term ultraderecha for Milei, and they find it odd. It's not a common term used for Milei in Argentina, thats what the Argentinian media uses for politicians like Bolsonaro. One hypothesis is that it started with the Spaniards, then the multi language newspapers translated to English, and the rest of the international media copied from there.
A more interesting reading experience could be to describe the unfolding of the events. "After his win in the primaries, he got widespread attention in international media, labeling him as far-right etc". The current format is still begging for disputes, and from my perspective this indicates its not a good wording. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
1.
  • Well, I agree that if this article is going to get "Good Article" status, it will look much different and better, and may or may not include that part. But for that to happen, time and more users are needed. Also if a politician has received significant attention for his controversies, that is going to be in the lead; it is not prohibited. Just look at Donald Trump. "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic." This is probably even more critical than what we write for Milei, and is shorter. From my experience, many articles start as very long, overly detailed, and wordly, and then transitionate into well-written, concise good article; it takes a lots of work, time, and cooperation, but I hope the same will happen for this article.
2.
  • That is what I was referring to when talking about their editorial policy. Please, check WP:REPUTABLE. The sources listed at WP:RSP as "Generally reliable" or "Green" do engage in fact-checking. If we followed your standards, most of the references would have to be removed because they do not do like us and do not use inline references. All those sources used for many of the issues you are complaining about are "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and are considered generally reliable. Again, keep in mind that when reliable sources essentially say the same thing (e.g. Milei opposes abortion), there is no need to attribute it because otherwise it becomes an editoral mess; imagine an article reading always "According to", it would be a huge, unreadable mess.
    In fact, even WP:ATTRIBUTION says: "Although everything on Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed." When sources agree and state something as a fact (e.g. Milei's opposition to abortion), there is no need to say: "According to reliable sources, Milei opposes abortion." It is redundant and bad practice. As you can see, I have attributed all quotes, and also attributed things that cannot be stated as fact, such as the far-right label.
    Our disagreement is that you feel more should be attributed (such as the COVID-19 vaccines issue in the lead), while I think there is no need to attribute it because it is sufficiently sourced. For example, The Economist may have well said: "According to critics, he expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines." They did not write that though. If they themselves had attributed it like that, I would have attributed it myself too. As The Economist is considered a generally reliable source, that non-attributed statement can be presumed to be "reliable unless proven otherwise". Same thing for other stuff you prefer to see attributed.
3.
  • Well, that applies to any label of Milei. They call him a [another label] but do not explain why. In truth, they do explain why they use the label. For example, an article using the far-right label may focus on Milei's opposition to abortion, climate change denial, "Cultural Marxists", and some of his more controversial views, while an article using the right-wing libertarian label may focus on his economic policies. They may not say "We say and think that Milei is such and such because A and B", but they use the label and cite his political positions that they believe support that label, or more likely they list his political positions and then decide which label to use to describe him, perhaps asking experts that they may or not directly cite. Again, as none of this is stated as fact, I fail to see it as the big issue it appears to you. When there is disagreement, as you noted, the common thing to do on Wikipedia is to state the various viewpoints, which we already do. "Politically, he has been variously described as far right, ultraconservative, and right-wing libertarian." We give no more weight to any particular label and simply list them.
4.
  • We already sort of do this. "Due to those controversies and his radical conservative social and economic policies, his victory in the primaries was deemed an upset, and led to his characterization [international media reliable sources] as a far-right populist." That whole paragraph, which was not written by myself but I still support it for the time being, is a way to explain why he has been labelled far right, since many questioned the reliable sources, when to me and other users who had no issues it appears clear. Many of his views, including his rethoric about the political cast, are right-wing populist, which is often considered part of the radical right.
Davide King (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
1. I think we should include the controversies, its a question of how. I would prioritize not including anything, instead of writing something one-sided. Re Trump, I read the lead and I understand now why the international media are writing all this stuff about Milei, as they are conflating the two. With that said, the lead in the Trump article is only one-sided, this just fuels the polarization, and will get him reelected, its a really bad idea. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that says it should be written this way, perhaps its a result of group polarization... E.g. in these polls Biden is just slightly better than Trump, so a reelection is not unlikely;
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/joe-biden/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/
And the people who support Trump now distrust media as a result;
https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-remains-near-record-low.aspx
This means the Trump article would simply make the same people distrust Wikipedia. Is that the goal? Anyway, lets not waste our efforts on US politics, that ship is sinking. We should probably try do better on this article.
2. As an Encyclopedia, of course it needs to depend on reliable sources. But this is a political BLP, the political parts are not primarily factual, nearly everything in politics is opinionated. The facts here are not what is written/said in the sources, but that sources have written/said so and so. Including multiple and all relevant perspectives is essential, otherwise its just propaganda. Factual claims should only be made when there is no dispute. My opinion is that we should explicitly avoid seeking the Truth in any politics article, just include all the different aspects, while obviously excluding aspects of no or little relevance to the article.
3. Yes indeed, it applies to any label. If the label was undisputed, nobody would complain, and it could live on Wikipedia just fine. Context is extremely important, when context is removed, different interpretation will increase between different people. Thus some people will complain, when others do not. We reached a good state when there are few or no disputes, but its unlikely we can find the perfect phrasing, and ofcourse there will always be the outliers in the gaussian distribution.
4. I'll propose a rewrite we can discuss. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
See my proposed rewrite of the lead in the other thread in this section. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
First of all, I am already working to address this issue by creating a Political positions of Javier Milei, akin other "Political positions of" articles, there is no need to be so aggressive. Second of all, have you thought that most of sources I found specifically discusses his political positions because he is considered controversial by reliable sources? Otherwise I would have already added those sources and statements about his life and career myself. Once the rest is moved into the new article, it will be easier to focalize on his life and career. Finally, have you thought that WP:NEWSORGS are the best sources we have? I could not find many academic sources, much less in English since you complained about the use of non-English sources but I will address this later. So please, keep in mind that while Milei began achieved political notability in 2021, it was mainly his August 2023 primaries win that gave him international prominence, so both the article and reliable sources are suffering from this, which nonetheless gave us many facts and statements about the subject and are useful. With time, all of this will change for the better. Davide King (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Alright, if you can keep your word on it, I believe you. Just wanted to bring up my concerns here. BastianMAT (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
As the editor is arguing the majority is supporting him (when several are actually severely criticizing it), sharing your opinion is very much needed. I need to understand the accepted approach to this before i can start making further edits, as most of the criticism i write is simply reverted, and we should avoid an edit war. I will consider reporting Gatekeeping, but lets see if we can resolve it another way first. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Ironically enough, it was Pedantic Aristotle who wanted to make the lead even more wordly and add more sources and wording to clarify his political positions as if we did not do that, so it is not my sole fault. For example, they wanted us to say in the lead: "According to The Economist, Milei has expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. However, Milei himself has been vaccinated for COVID-19 and clarified, 'I am not anti-vaccination, I am pro-vaccination.'" In short, they would make the lead even worse and more focused on his political positions than it already is. It would be like asking us to cite Trump's POV in the Donald Trump's lead about the 6 January 2021 attacks rather than reflect what the majority of reliable sources have said.
The long-standing lead simply says "he expressed skepticism for COVID-19 vaccines", which is supported by The Economist, other reliable sources, and the subject's statements themselves (that he vaccinated does not cancell out his criticism and skepticism of it, many who were skeptics vaccinated, even Trump did so, and Milei himself said that the reason was because he had to travel to other countries to discuss his political views and had to be vaccinated to do so ("Now I am entering Congress, I am going to give up my diet, on 10 December I am leaving my job, I have to go to give talks in Uruguay, the United States, Chile, and Spain, and I cannot enter without the vaccine. What do I do? Do I run out of income? What do I live on?"), so it is not like he is no longer skeptic. In fact, he chose the Sinopharm BIBP COVID-19 vaccine because it is an inactivated virus vaccine precisely because he was still skeptical of other COVID-19 vaccines that, as has been noted by the WHO, "the safety and efficacy required by vaccines are not in question". This goes for many other things.
In practice, they simply disagree with what secondary reliable sources have said because they think they do not reflect primary sources themselves. Yet, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES is clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." So it is not even a case where I may have synthetized sources, they are disputing the sources themselves and even disputed the far-right label as if reliable sources did not use.
Note that we never stated this as fact either. I do not think the article is perfect, and I may have missed something or made mistakes, but the criticism directed towards me is exaggarated, as if it takes two weeks to build a good article rather than years and many editors. Additionally, I read a reliable sources noting that he did not do much in Congress, which is not surprising considering his anti-state position, and indeed I could not find much about it; since we are in a presidential campaign, many of the recent sources (not me, who has simply searched them, I searched for "Javier Milei" not "Javier Milei controversies") have focalized on his political positions. By creating a separate article, that will already solve many of those issues.
Whatever issues there may be, rest assured that I am in good faith and willing to address and fix any of those issues. Davide King (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm adding a thread propsoal for a new lead here;
== Proposed Structure for Lead Section ==
=== First Paragraph ===
  • Introduction to Javier Milei, covering his main professions and roles.
  • Brief biographical context, including birth date and place.
  • Highlight of his most recent and notable political achievements.
=== Second Paragraph ===
  • Discussion of Milei's contributions to economics prior to entering politics.
  • Overview of his early political career and roles held.
  • General approach to these roles, avoiding judgment or qualifiers.
=== Third Paragraph ===
  • Summary of Milei's ideological leanings and affiliations.
  • Contextualization of how these ideologies fit or diverge within the broader Argentine political landscape.
  • Note on public and political reactions to his ideology, if notable.
=== Fourth Paragraph ===
  • Overview of additional facets contributing to his public persona (e.g., personal style, media presence).
  • Summary of how he is portrayed in domestic and international media
  • Brief mention of other relevant aspects of his public profile, including but not limited to, media coverage or controversies.
----------------
My proposed new the lead is here. (edited original)
Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
We could also migrate this discussion to the NPOV noticeboard. I don't know which is better. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this discussion closely, but the date formatting should be (born 22 October 1970), which is the standard. "Milei transitioned into a significant political figure" is clunky, could be rephrased as "rose to political prominence" Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
You can see my copy-edited lead here. I would be fine with a copy edited lead based off your structure. We could instead use part of the current lead for "Political positions of Javier Milei" (sandbox), what do you think? Then we would rewrite his "Political views" section as we are doing for the lead now, making it a concise summary of the eventual "Political positions of Javier Milei". With the space left for the main article, we will use it to focus more on his life and career, as was suggested, rather than his political positions and related controversies. It should help. Davide King (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Good, at least we are converging towards something that looks WP:GA appropriate. See my updated suggestion here.
I see the following changes from your copy-edit to be discussed;
  • It seems I made a mistake on the congress part, he is "representing the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires", which is different than the province of Buenos Aires.
  • Making sure this is as close to indisputable as possible; "His previously proposed drug and prostitution legalizations, as well as support for same-sex marriage, have been contrasted with his more socially conservative views, such as on abortion."
    • I think its more ambiguous, because I believe he also has said that the current state of Argentina is not appropriate for drug legalization. The support of same-sex marriage will also be disputed, because he prefers to remove marriage from the states responsibility. While he talks a lot, uses extreme language, and says very shocking things all the time, the specific proposals are more nuanced. I think we need to be careful to not conflate things, and the statement needs to be accurate.
    • How about this? "He has expressed support for freedom of choice on topics, such as drugs, prostitution, marriage, sexual preference and gender identity, in contrast to his opposition to abortion and euthanasia".
  • We need to find the correct phrasing for the fourth paragraph, but... In order to make faster progress, a compromise could be to revisit this after reviewing the body content for those topics, it will take time to review this properly.
    • I propose we add an NPOV and dispute tag here for now; "He has criticized comprehensive sex education in schools as a form of brainwashing, expressed skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines, supported civilian firearm ownership support, promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, engaged in climate change denial, and wants to restrict immigration.",
  • How to include the media attention / labels used; "Politically, he as been variously described as far-right, ultraconservative, right-wing libertarian, and ultraliberal."
    • I think this should be in the last paragraph, regardless of how its phrased.
    • The article should avoid engaging in the disputes on this, but rather just reflect what's going on. I think its notable that Argentinian media and political commentators, does not use the term "far-right", but they do use it for Bolsonaro. Locally in Argentina he is simply a right-wing libertarian. International media used a wide range of terms, but i think the context is relevant to include somehow, due to the WP:RECENTISM of it.
    • See proposal for paragraph 4 above, if we include it there meanwhile, we can at least improve the rest of the lead while figuring this out.
Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Davide King Let me know if you have any comments to this, or if we should proceed with my suggestion. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your work and I think we can work it out in the end and with time. At the same time, this should not be limited to us, and other users should participate and help us so that we can achieve consensus for the changes, hence the reverts. "The article should avoid engaging in the disputes on this, but rather just reflect what's going on." And what is going on is that reliable sources have labelled him as far right, among other labels; it is not a big deal to me whether the labels are in the first paragraph (as in my draft) or the last (as you suggested), it is important that they are in the lead, for everything else we can work it out. You added verification tags to inlines that you thought, rightly or wrongly, were not verified by the given sources. Yet, in the case of "international sources see him as far right, Argentine ones see him as right-wing libertarian", it may fail verification because we need a reliable source (not just an opinion piece) that explicitily says and notes this, otherwhise it is WP:ORG/WP:SYNTH. Davide King (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems we are more or less in agreement. Consensus needs to be between the people who are discussing on the Talk page, and I have not yet seen anyone here oppose our proposal for a new lead, or the way it is written.
With regards to the remaining details, I tried to review articles from other politicians, and media portrayal, notable controversies and so on seems to be included in the last paragraph. It should definitely be included, and as i mentioned earlier, we can include the wording you choose while we figure out how to phrase it, as you can see in my proposal here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
When there is edit warring, it means more needs to be done and discussed; @Uniru288 and others should certainly participate to this discussion, so I reiterate that the more participation, the better, to avoid further controversies and edit warring. What I meant to say was that we sually have things like "socialist politician", "conservative politician", "far-right" politician in the first paragraph if not the first sentence when there is consensus among reliable sources, that is why I put the various labels in the first paragraph. You are correct that controversies are put in the last paragraph of the lead, and in this both of our drafts seem to agree. Davide King (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, we need to keep mind this is a biography, its an article summarizing the life of Javier Milei. We should include relevant facts, significant events that occurred like media attention etc, but its not really the place to write everyone's opinions about him, except in the relevant events.
I checked the articles of the 3 presidents in USA as comparison;
Bill_Clinton
George_W._Bush
Barack_Obama
These articles have received significant contributions, and the two oldest are GA. The GA articles are probably the gold standard we should aim for in a political biography. Think 10 years from now, if nothing else happened meanwhile, would the article still be written this way?
The comment made by Uniru288 on the edit in the article was that there was no consensus for the changes. I think we resolved that already, but anyone is free to participate in this discussion any time. We will not attract discussion about the new lead until after it is updated, the process should work iteratively. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Most articles start like this, it is the fault of recentism and the fact English-language articles about Milei mainly came along in August 2023 as he achieved international recognition. It is not like those articles you cited suddenly achieved "Good Article" status in a metter of weeks or months, it took many years for that, and will likely require a similar time for Milei. Of course, it is going to change if he becomes president, as we will have further main articles about it.
In fact, that is why I propose to move everything else to a dedicated "Political positions/views of Javier Milei" article, so that Javier Milei can be focused mainly on his career and what he does, rather than everything being about his positions and controversies. Under this plan, the main article about Milei is going to summarize very consicely the parent articles, such as the ones about his political position/views, etc. Davide King (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Combined answer in "New structure for article". I would strive to write it as if it was a GA from the beginning, but sure the article needs more work... its not even a B article yet. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft version (Javier Milei's lead). I would be fine with a shorter sentence about controversies if we use this lead for "Political positions/views of Javier Milei". I wish there was a button or option where there is not only a single version (rather than one having to do through "View history" because both of our drafts (about his political positions) are good. I like the organization of yours by each position; as my proposal include other sections "Background", "Academic analysis", etc., I used that organization by broader topics rather than by each position. I think both organization are good for their proposal and within their context: mine with the additional sections and in general a few medium long paragraphs through less section, and yours focused on more sections by topics with shorter paragraphs. Davide King (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm ok with updating it to your proposal in the first iteration. I included the formatting, and sources from the old edit here. We should probably keep those, and add the missing sources to the other section.
Also note that the City of Buenos Aires and Buenos Aires are two different districts in the Argentinian congress.
Feel free to update the lead to solicit more feedback. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the "Political positions/views of Javier Milei";
I picked "views", as this is also common on Wikipedia, and makes it easier to include more than just his political proposals. I again took inspiration from looking at those articles form earlier US presidents;
Political_positions_of_Ronald_Reagan
Political_positions_of_George_W._Bush
Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
I don't think we have enough content for an "overview" section yet. The background and public perception sections, can probably be included in the main article instead. We could add a section in the main article dedicated to various commentary, analysis, controversies etc, in a chronological structure.
There is probably so much controversy and criticism surrounding Javier Milei that we can write a dedicated article only for that. I could not find any standard approach to that on Wikipedia, so not sure how it should be included. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, since you said you "took inspiration from looking at those articles form earlier US presidents", why use "views" rather than "positions"? I do not understand this distinction you make. I am fine either way, and certainly one would redirect to the other, but I used "political positions" because that is what I often saw (e.g. the example you cited). "The background and public perception sections, can probably be included in the main article instead." Not until we have a main article about them, as the example of Bill Clinton you cited in another comment, who has a main article about it. "There is probably so much controversy and criticism surrounding Javier Milei that we can write a dedicated article only for that." I am not sure about that. Here, this is what I found from es.wiki. Davide King (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that both views and positions were used frequently. Views would include a wider range of theoretical aspects, beliefs and opinions, while political positions are specific to concrete laws and proposals. For Milei those are different things. E.g. he is a minarchist, but he proposes to add a new "Ministry of Human Capital". Thats the opposite of his philosophy, but a pragmatic approach. In "views" we can describe both aspects.
Btw, excellent summary of controversies and criticisms, but you are missing quite a lot. I can write plenty of content, i just don't know where to put it. Current organization of the biography article makes it impossible, its already too full of non-relevant content. I don't see a problem adding a section to begin with, and later spin that into its own article when it grows? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Since our two versions are so similar, i just went ahead and edited the main page, feel free to make changes there directly. We can keep discussing the details here. I also restructured the article following a similar approach, I haven't made many changes to the content yet, but please go through and check the stuff i did edit. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Cambalachero since the main page is edit restricted now, i cant update it with the new lead. Can you check it and see if its fine, and update it?
The last version is here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&oldid=1173676334
Davide Kings last proposal is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Davide_King/sandbox&oldid=1173516360 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

New structure for article

We are discussing the new lead above, so i will focus on the content of the article here.

At the moment the article has grown quickly, and contains a lot of unstructured information, which is not suitable for a biography. As a result we have spin out the political views into its own article here. Currently reviewing all sources, before publishing.

I propose to improve the main articles structure, with an example here. The idea is to group it into logical parts, taking inspiration from articles of US presidents (see Bill_Clinton, George_W._Bush). Something like the following sections, based on the material in the article today;

  • Lead
  • Early life and career
  • Transition to politics
  • Political career
  • Public image
  • Personal life

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see reason why the current introduction of the article should be changed. The current introduction makes a correct, effective and balanced summary of this political figure, and the sources are correct. Uniru288 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The new proposed lead is rewritten to be shorter and simplified, but it contains mostly the same content, and sources. See the main discussion on lead in (bottom of) Talk:Javier Milei/Archive 1#Main summary of Milei’s page severely undue. Latest proposal here.
Also see Talk:Javier_Milei#Shortening_the_lead. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems a good proposal to me Cambalachero (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the current structure is fine but would be better with our revised, shorter lead. For example, you cite the example of Bil Clinton that includes Bill Clinton § Public image, but that section is itself a summary of Public image of Bill Clinton, when we do not have such an article for Milei. Additionally, the whole purpose of creating an article about Milei's politicial position and views was to move all analysis and current section there, so we can focus on his career and possible presidency here without worrying about the space, since one criticism was that there was too much focus on his positions.
Your proposed version is also too long. What we should be doing next is creating a summary of his political views as we did for the future shortned lead.
§ Political views

Milei identifies with anarcho-capitalism and paleolibertarianism, while being for practical reasons a minarchist; he describes himself as a liberal-libertarian. Political commentators categorize his ideological views as a blend of populist, right-wing libertarian, and conservative strands, along with ultraliberal economics, right-wing populist, ultraconservative, and far-right politics, and representing anti-politics. He has also been variously described as a far-right populist, far-right outsider, far-right libertarian, and libertarian populist. Milei rejected the use of the far-right label to describe his views, and said: "I'm a liberal and libertarian, these positions are things of the left, because for the left, everything that is not on their side is on the right."
Now we should work together to have a second paragraph of similar length to summarize his main social, economics, and others positions. Davide King (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be better to remove everything in political views once there is a dedicated article, it would fill up the article with information that is unrelated to the biography. Anything in the proposed article above is just temporary, in line with the iterative process.
There is more than enough content to include all these public appearances, quarrels and controversies Milei has been involved in under a "public image" section, or similar naming. Eventually this can spin out a dedicated article, probably we could write a book with content only in that section. There is also a lot of content to write about his path from economist to politician, at the moment its hard to do. This will naturally links the preceding section to the political career.
I proposed the structure to get us to quickly to the desired end state, which is in line with long term politician articles I've seen. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
So I found Wikipedia guidelines for how to include all the controversies and criticisms. Its described in Wikipedia:CRITS;
An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged ...
and
For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section.
This seems to be written explicitly for Milei, so "Public image" seems like recommended practice here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Excessive political bias

Wikipedia should limit to informing people about facts, this article however contains an enormous amount of opinions others hold of Milei (both personal and political) that do not belong here, the entire article should be rewritten so discussion about his beliefs and actions happen in the public town square, not here Eloymtf (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The article incorrectly states that Ben Bernanke was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The source for this assertion correctly cites Ben Bernanke as the Chair (i.e., President) of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are different entities. 132.200.132.107 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Wow (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Party

La Libertad Avanza is a political coalition, not a party. Milei's party is the Argentinian Libertarian Party. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Change the party to "Libertarian Party" and include "Liberty Advances" as the coalition. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No. That is wrong. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2023 Argentine general election So is this article wrong? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
La Libertad Avanza member parties:
Libertarian Party
National Democratic Party
Democratic Party
Integration and Development Movement (Factions)
Republican Force
Federal Renewal Party
Renewal Crusade
Unite for Freedom and Dignity
Neighborhood Confederation of Entre Ríos
Pensioners and Youth Movement 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

The snippet:

Milei wrote to a friend in a chat: "I saw the resurrection of Christ three times, but I can't count it. They would say I'm crazy."

Should read something like

Milei wrote to a friend in a chat: "I saw the resurrection of Christ three times, but I can't say anything about it. They would say I'm crazy."

"contar" can be "count", but it's also "telling"/"saying something"/"speaking out" Mtzguido (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The wording has been changed. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 18:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Abysmal translations

When it says “can't count it”, it means “can't tell it”. Whoever translated that way, ignoring the two meanings of contar, shouldn’t be translating. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The entire article is in horrid shape. The level of English is subpar at best, with some passages being absolutely incomprehensible. It is also wildly incoherent, with some parts reading like a PR release by Milei's staffers only to be immediately followed by a passage that looks more like character assassination than an encyclopedia article. Both things are unacceptable. I do not have the time to copyedit this thoroughly, but given the fact that this individual is leading the polls in Argentina I may drop by in a week or so and attempt to fix the most egregious problems. Ostalgia (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I tried to do a larger fix to this article a few weeks ago, but there has been significant amount of political activism stopping any attempt of improving this article. The last attempt is here, which ended up in me getting a 24 hour ban;
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&oldid=1173676334
Since I'm not "extended confirmed" yet, and the article is protected, I've been unable to continue working on this article since then. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
(note that this was just the first step of reworking the article, not a complete fix) Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

POVFORK of political positions

I've redirected a recently created draft article for the Political positions of Javier Milei to this article. The draft was a WP:POVFORK, containing a one-sided approach to the topic and not mirroring the consensus in this article. Rather than starting a spinoff article from scratch, I propose recreating the spinoff article based on the 'political views' section here. gobonobo + c 16:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

For those wondering what the draft article was, this is what the OP is referring to. Wow (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Wow. There's now a spinoff article located at Political positions of Javier Milei which duplicates the 'political views' and 'political positions' sections from this article. gobonobo + c 17:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
What you did is wrong on many levels. First, AFC is not a FA nomination, not even a GA nomination. It has never been a requirement that the draft article is "complete", only that it can stand in its current form. You had exceeded your reviewer's prerogatives by rejecting the draft merely because a pair of views were not mentioned. If the user had once been blocked was irrelevant, it would only be if he edited or submitted the draft in violation of the block (he did not, he served his block time and he's back a regular accepted editor by now). I let it slide because AFC does not have a system for review disagreement, but now... as you disliked the review of another reviewer, you used Page blanking on the page, and then overwrote it with content copypasted straight from the article. Please restore the page as I had approved it, and then raise any concerns on the talk page so we may talk about them, or start a proper deletion discussion if that's what you want. Remember that once a draft is approved, it is no longer a draft but an article, and must be treated as such. Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cambalachero. I originally rejected the draft for being a POVFORK and a violation of WP:NPOVVIEW. Those concerns were not addressed and the article was resubmitted without any changes, which you then approved an hour later. The draft had an unbalanced POV that diverged markedly from the consensus here. You're welcome to bring this to WP:NPOV/N, but I think the spinoff based on the content from this article is a much more balanced starting point. gobonobo + c 18:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with Cambalachero. You, @Gobonobo, have censored an article by redirecting it to your own article. If you disagree with the content, it should be discussed on that articles talk page, not here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC Political views of Javier Milei vs Political positions of Javier Milei

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing audio

The pronunciation reference for his name is a broken link, resulting in the error "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-transcoded.44/4/44/Javier_Milei_-_nombre_%28ES-ar%29.ogg/Javier_Milei_-_nombre_%28ES-ar%29.ogg.mp3". 2604:3D08:5882:7200:8CDF:5206:F6A8:F1FD (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please update

Please update to include his win. E.g. "He advanced to the run-off of the presidential election, in which he faces Sergio Massa." Jojalozzo (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023 (2)

The audio file for the pronunciation of his name is still broken, and it should be removed. 2604:3D08:5882:7200:1C89:737D:D9FD:798D (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Done for now: I cannot figure out why this is broken. Removed until it can be fixed. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 03:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Draft:Javier Milei into Javier Milei

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Procedural close. This discussion was started with an understanding that there is information on the page proposed for merging that is not in this article, but during the discussion it was revealed that there is, in fact, no such information, as the page was created through wholesale copying of paragraphs from this article (Javier Milei), so there is nothing to merge, and therefore there is nothing to discuss as part of the Proposed merge process.
Opposition was expressed to covering the topic of "Political positions of Javier Milei" in a separate article. This means that if there is a desire to split this content out, this may be a controversial split, and WP:PROSPLIT may need to be followed.—Alalch E. 04:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There is information in the draft that is not in this article, such as perceptions and image. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Didn't other editors agree that this article should be split and not merged with other pages? Wow (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Isn't that Political positions of Javier Milei (see WP:Articles for deletion/Political views of Javier Milei)? S0091 (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Yep, this one is for the political image section, as this covers a range of other topics. As the main article reached the ~10k word recommendation, we should split into additional articles before expanding on the topics. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Cambalachero, @Gobonobo, @Piertosiri who participated in the AfD. S0091 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
There is no need to first establish a consensus to create new articles. It should happen organically once an article grows too large, as in this case. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
This does not need to be its own standalone article. Well cited information from this article that is pertinent and important to the main article should be retained and moved there, and then this article should be deleted after that. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn as per WP:CFORK, this is standard practice and encouraged. The content has not changed, but was restructured due to feedback in the review process. The text is copied from the main article and is 95% the same, but some unrelated sentences to political image were removed. After split, the articles will become more manageable, and it will be easier to direct further updates. What are your specific concerns? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

Put that Javier Milei is Argentina’s president 190.247.24.140 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Milei hasn't been sworn in as Argentina's president yet. --Wow (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023 (4)

Add the {{Libertarianism sidebar}} 207.96.32.81 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Wow (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023 (6)

2800:A4:335E:E00:8055:DF5C:DF3A:1570 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Javier Milei elected presidents of the argentines.

 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. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

Change

Catholic social teaching is considered theft by La Libertad Avanza because it relies on tax revenues

to

The pope’s doctrine of social justice is considered theft by La Libertad Avanza because it relies on tax revenues

. The guardian source doesn’t say “Catholic social teaching”. Also in latin American context; he is referring to liberation theology which Milei thinks Pope Francis espouses. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. However, although it is correct that the Guardian does not talk about catholic social teaching, it does not talk about liberation theology either. It talks about social justice, a concept embraced by both the church and the Peronist party, and that he criticized many times in his books. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

New political image section

The current political views and political position sections make no sense. The content is random, not even related to its category. I created a new section named Political Image, commonly found in political figures biographies. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pedantic_Aristotle/sandbox&oldid=1183222637 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gobonobo let me know if you see any issues with this. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023 (5)

Remove paragraph either "Environnement" in the "Political positions" chapter or "Climate Change" views in the Controversies" chapter

Both express the exact same ideas and thus add nothing more to the biography. JonChai (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done The climate change section has been removed. --Wow (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Identical Subsections

The two subsections under the heading "Political Positions" which are entitled "Comments Regarding Political Correctness" and "Cultural Marxism" have identical body text. Jevhenij (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Ïvana (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both - somehow I missed that one when merging the "controversies" section into views. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal - Public image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
closed. Article created — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedantic Aristotle (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As the main article keeps growing, we need to start splitting into sub-articles. The main article is already above the recommended size, and is expected to continue to grow WP:CFORK. As with other politicians, two typical sub-articles with Public image and Political positions should be used for a large part of the content, and the main article focus on the political career, as appears to be an established practice in many similar articles.

@Iljhgtn Let me know if you have any problems with this, as you commented an opposition in the previous merge discussion.

courtesy pings; @Alalch E., Wow, S0091, Cambalachero, Gobonobo, and Piertosiri: 

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support – The article is above the size recommendation for a Wikipedia article, and should follow common procedure. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, especially now that he has officially been elected (though not actually sworn in or whatever they call it in Argentia). this will likely grow for years to come. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent. Having a separate political positions page is fine (and there already is one), but public image doesn't seem that unwieldy yet. That said, if the section does grow significantly larger, I might change my mind. Joe (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    i am largely in the same camp as you joe. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    @JoePhin I kind of agree, but there is quite a lot of content that could be added to Public image that would not be suitable for the main article, so it would never be added to relevance and priority of other content. The main article also needs to be truncated before its expanded further, due to its current size. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --Wow (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support for what it's worth, but consensus is not needed to create fork articles when the main one gets too big. Cambalachero (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed, but due to some earlier editing mess, this was the least controversial approach. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Pedantic Aristotle I have resubmitted the draft on your behalf but there is a redirect in the way so I had to request deletion. Once the redirect is deleted, I will accept the draft. S0091 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New introduction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
closed. Content has been updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedantic Aristotle (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I wrote a new introduction here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pedantic_Aristotle/sandbox&oldid=1183213210 The current one is not optimal, and eclectic. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uniru288 lets discuss here. Can you be specific which content you would like to change, keep or remove? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New early life / career section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
closed. Content has been updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedantic Aristotle (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is a proposed new early life and career section. The current one is a mess. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pedantic_Aristotle/sandbox&oldid=1183221520 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've made some changes here, mostly to reduce proseline. I've also moved the details on his degrees into the early life subsection as a more suitable location. --Wow (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023 (3)

Add in leade -

Milei is the first libertarian president-elect in world history[1][2][3][4]

207.96.32.81 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://redstate.com/jeffc/2023/11/19/javier-milei-wins-argentinas-presidency-becomes-first-libertarian-head-of-state-n2166566
  2. ^ https://www.rt.com/news/587617-argentina-libertarian-president-elected/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS
  3. ^ https://voz.us/president-milei-the-libertarian-achieved-a-historic-and-overwhelming-victory-in-the-argentine-elections/?lang=en
  4. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/world/javier-milei-crushes-argentine-left-becomes-worlds-first-libertarian-head-state
 Not done References 1, 2 and 4 say nothing of that. Only reference 3 says something that may seem like that, but no: "He will be the first libertarian president in the history of the South American country". Meaning, of Argentina, not world history, not even in South America as a continent. Cambalachero (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
​ More sources [1]. Change to Argentina’s first libertarian president instead of world history?207.96.32.81 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://fee.org/articles/javier-milei-argentinas-first-ever-libertarian-president/
 Not done: Foundation for Economic Education is also not a reliable source. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2023 - Correction of Inaccuracy Regarding WEF

There is a segment under the "Economics Career" section of this article which claims that Milei is a "member of the World Economic Forum". This is false. The WEF maintains profile pages for hundreds of individuals that have participated in WEF and WEF-sponsored events in any way, shape, or form (including but not limited to Bernie Sanders, Mel Gibson, Ivanka Trump, Boris Johnson, and many more people who are not affiliated with the WEF). Milei - much like Bernie Sanders and Mel Gibson - is not a member or employee of the WEF. The false assertion that Milei is a WEF member or employee has been promulgated by conspiracy theorists across the political spectrum. HaleakalAri (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've removed that claim. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Crop political positions

And here is an initial rework for the political positions section, following the split of the article; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pedantic_Aristotle/sandbox&oldid=1183224521 Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pedantic Aristotle This looks like you're proposing a total rewrite of the article. Instead of sections, is there a draft of the whole thing we can look at?
Also, if you could please use edit summaries for your edits. Your recent changes were removing his party affiliation and deputy status from the lead, and blanking the sourced content describing his political positions. There should be a consensus here before we implemente those changes. gobonobo + c 22:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I did it this way because its easier to discuss section by section, instead of a rewrite of the article. Re-added those sentences. The first one was accidental, the second one was removed due to the information being repeated in the following sentences, so its a bit excessive. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Note this is just an initial restructuring. Content changes can be proposed afterwards. Note that the political positions article is assuming a split of the article, as per AfD discussions. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Uniru288 lets discuss here. Can you be specific which content you would like to change, keep or remove? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Image Crop

User:Wow is asking for a consensus on whether cropped version File:Javier Milei - 2022 (cropped).jpg is better option than uncropped File:Javier Milei VIVA22 (cropped).jpg.

He has reverted twice and I have no interest in going into a conflict over this so asking for input here. Thank you. Cheers. // sikander { talk } 🦖 00:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Won’t he have an official portrait when inaugurated? I would wait. Use the photo that was last used. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Javier Milei - Father

In the "early life" section, It says his father is a bus driver although in the French and Spanish version, it says he is a businessman specialising in passenger transport. I think a correct is needed. Ledébutantinexpérimenté (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Senseless

He advocates dialogue in regards the Falklands dispute, not the Falklands War, which ended in 1982. Please, can anybody consider a change to that? Under Political Positions. 190.246.97.81 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The BBC source appears to reference the Falklands war, not the dispute, though I am reading it as translated by Google. Do you have any RS that go into more detail about his exact position on the issue? Please consider posting them here, if you do. Joe (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Javier_Milei/Archive_2&oldid=1188411999"