Talk:Javier Milei/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criticism: Opinion stated as fact and unnotable source

There are a couple of issues with the following quote from the article:

"One important issue is that Milei makes constant use of mathematical formulae and charts throughout his writings in order to illustrate his points, which clearly contradicts the skeptical Austrian views on the usage of mathematics in economics, regarded by them as a social science. This is the main obstacle to frame Milei as an 'Austrian' economist. Although his conceptual framework is decidedly Austrian, his methodology is not.[3]"

First, the information isn't presented as a quote but as a statement by wikipedia, we should attribute these opinions to the critic. Second, the second part of the sentence is original researcher, the cited source never writes this. Third, the writer of these source is not identified, we could work around this by citing the newspaper (or is it just a website). But without any notability or a cited journalist, it's better to just delete it.

In lieu of keeping the edit in good faith, I'm citing another article from journalist Andrés Asiain through the more popular newspaper "Pagina 12". The content of the criticism is still weak and I think there is room for citing better criticism. I hope to see: - Engaging arguments: As it stands, both of these criticisms discredit the author rather than engage in the discussion that he posits. - Notable critics: Pagina 12 has a wiki page, but not the journalist. - Reflective of the public debate he is taking part of: Milei is known for his libertarian analysis on current Argentina's political and economic topics, criticism should reflect and challenge these views.

--TZubiri (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Far-right?

The opening sentence says "Javier Gerardo Milei (Buenos Aires, Argentina; 22 October 1970) is an Argentine far-right politician". That's a highly loaded term, that equals neonazism, racial supremacism and the like. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. None of the sources provided is valid. "El Diario" and "Tiempo Argentino" say so in opinion pieces, and those are not valid references regardless of the newspaper itself (see WP:RSEDITORIAL). In fact, those editorials talk about some sinister conspiracy of "the right" to raise to power, and proponents of conspiracy theories are seldomly reliable. Similarily, Perfil published an interview with Carlos Quenan, and that's only a valid reference for "Carlos Quenan says X" passages, not for statements of truth.

There is another problem with the "far-right" term: some left-wing sources use it all the time, on everybody who is not on the left, for defamation. There is no center or "standard" right-wing for them, there's only the left and the far-right. So, to avoid such connotations, it shouldn't be enough that some source calls Milei "far-right" in passing: we need a reliable source that actually references that Milei supports the ideas the far-right stands for.

It would be worth pointing out that Elisa Carrió compared Milei with Hitler, in a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument. He replied that such comparisons go against the standards of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and denounced her for it. Doesn't seem what a "far-right" would do to me. Cambalachero (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cambalachero:, exactly! And there is a big big problem here. The user edit warring is called "Andy395663". The user account is very new, has a pretty suspicious name, and has ONLY edited this article. So, it led to my thoughts being he made this account to only push his point of view, with it most likely being alternate account. By further researching, his contributions shows that he only pushes his own view on one article, edit warring against other users, and has not contributed to any other article. He has failed to respond to the problems you raised despite notifications, and instead continues to push his own views, he has reverted multiple editors, and he has been warned for adding unsourced stuff to this article in the name of making this article look bad with all his edits have also being done without consensus. All of this is a clear example of bad faith acting. He has also added WP:PEACOCK words, like "follower", and "strongly", leading to WP:NPOV problems in this article, which needs a cleanup. If he fails to step aside, or fails to explain his intent of WP:POV pushing, I advise us to urgently bring this to ANI. BastianMAT (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

1. None of the 3 sources you question are opinion articles, none is classified in the opinion section of those media. That is a falsehood of yours.

2. The far-right is not just Nazism, fascism or white supremacism. The far-right is defined as a radical conservative ideology. There are many sources that Javier Milei has radical conservative positions, such as his opposition to abortion even in cases where a woman or girl was sexually abused. Javier Milei is also a believer and promoter of the far-right conspiracy theory called "cultural Marxism."

3. You are an openly right-winger. You are falling into the same biases that you criticize others. You are no longer only deleting the sources of the introduction, now you are deleting absolutely all the sources that link Javier Milei with positions and politicians of the far-right. You deleted the sources that showed Javier Milei's links with Jose Antonio Kast, Jair Bolsonaro, the Spanish Vox party and others. You also deleted the sources where Javier Milei promotes the far-right conspiracy theory of "cultural Marxism", and also those where he denies climate change and opposes abortion in cases of sexual abuse. It is evident that you are biased and you are already at the level of vandalism. Andy395663 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Good news everybody! Andy395663 just went down along with a long list of his sockpuppets. You probably should clean-up any mess left in the article after him :) -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And as the guy keeps creating new puppets, I took this opportunity and filed a page protection request for this bio article. I'd say, while admins work on blocking this dude for good, we should ask for semi-protection of all articles he tries to edit disruptively. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Why would a far right neonazi or fascist support an ultra liberal zionist? Are we living in world where there is an alliance between fascism, zionism and liberalism? Bbvvcad12 (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying that Milei is a neo-Nazi. Guess what? The far right is not limited to neo-Nazis, and in fact many far-rightists support Israel, either due to its ethnic nationalism or as bulwark against Arabs/Muslims. If you truly think the world press is "owned by liberal jews" [sic!]", perhaps you are the problem, not Wikipedia. Davide King (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@cambalachero:, 1. None of the 3 sources you question are opinion articles, none is classified in the opinion section of those media. That is a falsehood of yours.

2. The far-right is not just Nazism, fascism or white supremacism. The far-right is defined as a radical conservative ideology. There are many sources that Javier Milei has radical conservative positions, such as his opposition to abortion even in cases where a woman or girl was sexually abused. Javier Milei is also a believer and promoter of the far-right conspiracy theory called "cultural Marxism."

3. You are an openly right-winger. You are falling into the same biases that you criticize others. You are no longer only deleting the sources of the introduction, now you are deleting absolutely all the sources that link Javier Milei with positions and politicians of the far-right. You deleted the sources that showed Javier Milei's links with Jose Antonio Kast, Jair Bolsonaro, the Spanish Vox party and others. You also deleted the sources where Javier Milei promotes the far-right conspiracy theory of "cultural Marxism", and also those where he denies climate change and opposes abortion in cases of sexual abuse. It is evident that you are biased and you are already at the level of vandalism. Andy395663 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cambalachero:, I hope you have read the message. Andy395663 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, those articles are opinion pieces because they are author making reflections and analysis of things that have happened (as opposed to articles that simply report something that has just happened). It is irrelevant the section of the newspaper they are stored into. Yes, perhaps there's more to far-right than just neonazism, but that's still one of the main things people thinks when hearing the term. That makes it a contentious label, and we have to avoid those.

As for the remarks about me, this is the article as I last edited it, before he made his mass revert. As it can be seen, Andy is either confused or he lies: the links to Bolsonaro, Kast and Vox, and his opinions about cultural marxism, climate change, abortion; everything was still there. Cambalachero (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant? All media have an opinion section, essential to avoid confusion. All opinion articles are in that category. And none of the 3 articles you question is in that section, therefore your approach is false. Andy395663 (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Is that your argument? That an opinion piece is not an opinion piece unless the newspaper categorizes it as such? Cambalachero (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

1. They are not opinion articles, they are media articles. 2. As I said before, these media have an opinion section, and none of the articles you question are in that section, absolutely nowhere is it indicated that they are opinion articles. Andy395663 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Italian origins?

Milei is an Italian surname that can be found around Cosenza and also Perugia. Its etymon is Greek.-- Carnby (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you proposing? WP:EGRS, for example, says: "Do not categorize people based upon deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors. Doing so would be original research." 7szz (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to note whether he has declared something about his origins or not. I wasn't able to find a reliable source in English or Spanish, but at least one in Italian exists: "Milei è nato in una famiglia umile - padre autista di autobus e madre casalinga - di origine italiana"-- Carnby (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Far right" before 2023

Hello. Do we have any sources on his "far right" positioning before 2023? If not, instead of "Milei has been variously described as far right", we could write something like "In 2023, the international press takes an interest in him and unanimously classifies him as far right." To avoid the "Wikinews" effect. Fourmidable (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources already called him far-right in 2021 when he enetered Congress, e.g. at the beginning of his political career. Davide King (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

How can you be ultraconservative and Anarcho-capitalist at the same time?

Is there any human in the entire world who can explain how can you be Anarcho-capitalism and ultraconservative at the same time? are we living in a world of memes instead of taking political issues seriously? Liberalism in general is a beast of its own, both leftists and fascists hate it, I wonder how come a turbo libertarian can be described as fascist. Jobbik, Nouvelle Droite and John Birch Society can be described as ultraconservative movements which share:

1) Ultraconservatives are against abortion, he is not 2) Ultraconservatives are in favor of a strong traditional state, Milei is against state and he is against any form of state intervention 3) Ultraconservatives are in favor of total or almost total ban on drugs, Milei is not 4) Ultraconservatives are in favor of religion directing moral life, Milei is not 5) And lastly ultraconservatives are not in favor of SELLING ORGAN, CHILDREN AND/OR HUMAN PARTS on the free market. https://en.mercopress.com/2022/06/03/argentine-congressman-javier-milei-favors-trade-of-human-organs

If we agree that Milei is a ultraconservative, we'll have to edit Stalin wikipedia to state he was a communist, fascist and ultraconservative, all three at the same time. Which is absurd! We are not even in a political war or frame-adversary war anymore we are simply allowing crazy psychopaths edit the main page with lies and made up definitions!

- Milei, according to himself and by reading his speeches, is a center-right zionist, an advocate of anarch-capitalism who happens to be very influenced by american neoconservatives, it's not rocket science, in my opinion.

Bbvvcad12 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but those are the terms the sources in the article are using.

The two topics above in this Talk page discuss exactly these topics, the problem is finding reliable sources which can be included in the article to provide some counters. Feel free to contribute if you know of any reliable sources that discusses this. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok but isn't better to have a good source first instead of adding weird definitions and later having to deal with all the corrections, misinformation and chaos? Who is actually editing and adding entries in the main page anyway and why are people allowing this?

CBS Canada has just called him a libertarian: the articled was posted at Aug 23, 2023 4:00 AM EDT and it is signed by CBC Canada. Who will decide if CBS Canada is more authoritative than Le Monde? It's impossible to have this type of debate.

In dealing with political issues we have to keep in mind that news organizations change all the time. Shareholders of Le Monde are not more authoritative than the shareholders of New York Times. The editorial team of Le Monde, chosen by their shareholders and their chief editor is not dumber or smarter than the editors and journalists hired by the New York Times shareholders chosen by the chief editor (or under the responsibility of the chief editor), they are simply different. And if you read their mission statement, they are committed to provide NEWS and information about current events. They can be a good source of fact not authoritative source of opinion, which is a ridiculous idea anyway. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is to include all notable sources. If 50 media outlets have reported him this way, it should definitely be included. E.g. the use of these terms raises questions, and makes people investigate, so it is not only partial towards one side.

You, me and many other people are free to add information. Wikipedia moderators try to make sure the edits are in line with Wikipedia policies. The general rule is to include all notable sides of the discussion, rather than picking which ones to include. There is some discussion what is considered notable if its not from reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definition, but generally everything from reliable sources should be included. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Notable sources is not equal to wrong sources. You cannot use a homeopathy source to explain the biological effects of a chemical substance, I'm afraid. Reliable source is not copy and paste a news website either. Unless the article in question explain the reasoning for using the terms they use, the reader should not be expected to enter the authors mind and identify what he meant by using the words he or she uses. The source in question should be read and analyzed first, instead, what we are dealing with is simple: people are using the 50 word headline create an alternative reality based on the 50 word headline. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source, according to the Wikipedia definition, includes a wide range of news outlets, especially those that cover a broad range of topics. There are a lot of policy documents that describe these things. They don't make distinctions on journalist level, or truth, because the goal is not to only write truthful statements, but all statements, the wrong ones as well. This is a good policy, because it limits editor bias, you can not omit information you disagree with, and you should not interpret the sources, just restate them. Without this rule, anyone could write anything, which is not the point.

The challenge is when a large amount of reliable sources make nonsense statements, and there are no equivalent reliable sources contradicting it. There is also a limit that prevents sources of too little relevance from getting too much coverage, otherwise the article could be filled with nonsense for anywhere. Content in the article preferably need multiple sources, and more sources leads to higher prominence.

Otherwise i agree with you, the article is still fairly one sided, but there is not a lot of sources that talk about this yet. So i think it accurately reflects the current state of reliable sources. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are right in your reasoning but the core issue, at least from a very light, sane and distant persective, is using ongoing news reports as authoritative source, that is, using their headline. The sources, most of the time, don't even agree with themselves in the core issues. As explained above, there is not any indication Milei is an ultraconservative, and no source so far has cited two ultraconservative ideas from him. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, what the article need is more serious sources, not just random headlines in media copying each other, however Milei is not very well known outside of the Spanish community yet so its hard to find. And ofcourse its easy to find opposition, the political opposition in Argentine is heavily funding the propaganda machine against him, and international media is just copying it. We have started to see some more serious journalism e.g. the Bloomberg interview, but it takes time.

Some of the content in the article is disputed, but for most of the content we depend on more sources to appear. E.g. there are statement such as these that are currently disputed in the discussion above;

"This is where he gets his conservative values, such as nationalism and anti-abortionism"

"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."

I think these are misunderstandings, but you can barely find independent sources discussing it, and especially not something that is considered reliable on Wikipedia. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that those whom you consider as "random headlines in media copying each other" are in fact the "independent sources" we need. They are mainly centrist (centre-left and centre-right) sources, we are not citing Jacobin or left-wing sources to support this. I disagree that it's only headlines, I think they do explain why they consider him far right but because of Milei's confusing and contradictory policies, which we cite, many readers do not seems to understand it, because they wrongly think that far right automatically means authoritarianism and fascism (this is the same thing for the far left, where it is automatically thought to mean authoritarianism and Stalinism), when both the far left and the far right include radical libertarian positions (they are considered far precisely because they are radicals), and so here we are. To reiterate, I still do not see any issues because we list the various labels to describe him, and we do not favour one over the other or state one as fact. Davide King (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

They are not independent sources "we need". They are not centrist. You are a festival of lies and dishonesty. Hopefully your pretentious defense of "liberal fascism" theory will enter the hall of shame in a future where people's IQ is above 85. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Then, pray tell, who are those centrist sources you would support? Also be careful about personal attacks. Davide King (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I explained three times the fact that we cannot use sources to fight each other "This editorial is better than the other" but you keep ignoring and using headlines not even the source text itself, so I'm not sure what is your real issue at this point. The question of "what centrist sources you would support" does not make any sense, as I tried to explain that editorials and news articles are not centrists, right-wing or left-wing, since it's not part of news organizations job and mission to hire people capable of understand, explaining and/or defining ideologies. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The "Academic analysis" explains why he is called far right. In fact, the far-right label is not always limited to headlines, there are sources that have far right in the headline and then lists his positions; that you think they may not be enough to be considered far right, it is your opinion. We do not even say that he is far right, we only say that a significant number of sources did so, including academics who explain why he is called far right and also detail some differences from other parts of the radical right. Far right is not limited to neo-Nazis, just like far left is not limited to communists. Davide King (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

We should add sources that explain this, as references where the term is used. At the moment the sources only reference to random headlines. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, they already do! For example this piece calls him a "far-right populist" also in the article itself, so there goes the strawman about headlines. Reliable sources are not required to explain why someone is described as a populist, a liberal, a socialist, a conservative, and so on. In fact, they use different labels to describe him (the same piece described him as a "libertarian economist"), and that is what we do too. We do not state as a fact that is far right, ultraconservative, or (right-wing) libertarian. Davide King (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good interpretation of the Wikipedia rules. The sources should discuss this specifically. The "aljazeera" reference simply uses these terms in the header and introduction, without any commentary. This kind of contentious label should have proper source, also in the lead. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. You would have a point if we stated as fact that he is far right but we are merely saying that he has been described [by reliable sources] as far right. All of the cited refs, plus the many others in the body, indeed support the claim that he has been described as far right, alongside the other listed labels. Davide King (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Headers / breaking news etc are not reliable sources. We should include proper sources to avoid discussion and reverts. See BLP;

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

What you are missing is that the policy you are quoting is referring to quotations. The quotes we are attributing are either to Milei himself or reliable sources about him. Also you would have a hard time to have us consider AFP, Reuters, Time and others cited sources not reliable. Davide King (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Then what about "and any material", and "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced"?

Only asking for sources where the term is used within the body content of the article, not in the header/intro of the article, as something other than just headline / attention seeking labels. There wasn't even a proposal of removing it, but asking for sources that are clearly within the BLP definition to improve the article.

This is definitely a label that falls within the definition of contentious, and the article "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."

We may have different ideas of what "greatest care and attention" means. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I do agree with you but there is a misunderstanding. Saying that Milei has been labelled far right is not "contentious material about living persons" per se, it may have been if this was done by unreliable or fringe sources but it was done by the main news agencies and even some right-wing reliable sources that usually avoid the label even in their headlines, yet they used it.

Stating it as fact, like "Javier Milei is a far-right Argentine politician and economist", now that would be "contentious material about living persons", and would indeed require better sourcing; I would agree with you if this was the case but it is not. In fact, the sources simply support the claim that he has indeed been labelled far right, and that is the only claim we are making. Finally, not all sources limited that to the headline, they also used it in the text or described his political positions and controversies. All we are saying is that he has been labelled far right, among other labels, that is all.

Since you and a few other users keep saying that sources do not explain the far right label, the final paragraph of the lead precisely explains why he has been labelled far right. Note that we say "characterized", and we still do not intend to say that is correct, we only say that a significant number used the far right label and we explain why. Davide King (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Add at least one source, preferably two using far-right in the body of the article as sources to the lead, and problem is solved. (and not in the intro, in the body content) Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What about this? It is placed within the context of another far-right party, e.g. Vox endorsing him, and is stated in the text.

"La formación de ultraderecha española Vox felicitó este lunes al economista de extrema derecha Javier Milei por su victoria en las elecciones primarias celebradas en Argentina, en las que fue el político más votado de entre los aspirantes a la presidencia del país sudamericano para los comicios del 22 de octubre."

"The Spanish far-right formation Vox congratulated the far-right economist Javier Milei on Monday for his victory in the primary elections held in Argentina, in which he was the politician with the most votes among the candidates for the presidency of the South American country for the elections on 22 October." Davide King (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That was an interesting discussing, and I think the IP got the point well that "[notable sources is not equal to wrong sources. You cannot use a homeopathy source to explain the biological effects of a chemical substance, I'm afraid." To keep it short, what part of "variously described" and "(right-wing) libertarian" do you not get? We already describe him as libertarian, we already say that there's a series of label used to described his political positions, and we do not favour one over the other. We are not saying that Le Monde using the far-right label is more authoritarive than The New York Times using libertarian (note that The New York Times also used far right, perhaps they used "far-right libertarian" to note the fact that he's different from more authoritarian or racists far-rightists but still far right), we are citing and listing all of them! We are not saying: "Javier Milei is a far-right politician and economist." We are saying: "Milei is an Argentine politiciain and economist. ... Politically, Milei has been variously described as [list of different rang of labels used by reliable sources]." The mere fact we list labels that may be seen as in contradiction to far right make your argument falls. We now also mention that some of his political positions are confusing, e.g. he supports a mix liberal and far-right policies, hence the contradiction. Davide King (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

"We are not saying that Le Monde using the far-right label is more authoritative than The New York Times using libertarian..."

I was referring to the fact that we cannot use News Organizations to wage war against each other. Translation: we cannot, or should not, engage in clickbait wars. The example of Le Monde editorial team and their shareholders is simply an observation about the lack of will and the lack of specialists in covering ideologies, something which they often do in the headline but not in the article itself; that is, they often say a person decide to have a vegetarian diet in the headline but no reason given in the article. Or better, they often say people are not sleeping well without expanding on the issue of what causes bad quality sleep time, etc. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

On this point, I totally agree. As I said, the best explanation I found for that is the mention of his opposition to abortion in cases of rape, his railing against Cultural Marxism, and radical economic policies. Again, I agree it would be better if they clarified and explained better what they mean by that, but it's the best we have. It's the same thing on the left, where they may describe politicians tho the left of the centre-left as far left. It happens on both sides of the spectrum, and is even more complicated on the left because there is disagreement on whether the far left is anything left of social democracy, which would make it very broad, or anything left of the main Communist party (e.g. anarchism, communist left, libertarian socialism), which may be too narrow. To a certain extant, this is also true for the far right (e.g. only neo-Nazis is too narrow) but scholars seems to have a clearer consensus on which belongs to the far right than the far left.

To return to the main point, I do think that many of the sources we use and that I have read try to explain the use of the far-right label citing his views on abortion, Cultural Marxism, economic radicalism, etc. That is why he is called far right or radical right. But I agree they could and should do a better job in explaining this. Davide King (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times in an article signed by three people: Jack Nicas, Natalie Alcoba and Lucía Cholakian Herrera on Aug. 14, 2023 called him a "FAR RIGHT LIBERTARIAN". This is the first time in history this term was used. The main page should add the following observation: The term "Far Right libertarian" was created on August 14, 2023, by New York Times and as of 2023 there is no explanation for its meaning.Bbvvcad12 (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not true. "Right-wing libertarian" was used for decades, I suppose they're adding "far-right" to imply that he comes from the more radical current of right-wing libertarianism, and perhaps precisely to distinguish him from other far-rightists, as if to say "he is not authoritarian or racist but we still consider him far right because his economic policies and other positions are extremist or very radical" (e.g. anti-abortion in rape cases, full privatizion, abolition of the state, etc.). Can we at least agree that those are commonly right-wing positions and can be consdiered radical? Even those opposed to abortion concede exceptions in rape cases, and even neoliberals and the likes of Milton Friedman did not want to privatize everything or abolish the state. Davide King (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean FAR RIGHT libertarian is something I've never heard in my life until August 23, 2023, and I could not find any other example. It would be the equivalent of "Fascist libertarian" Bbvvcad12 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the Spanish media used the term "ultraderecha" for a while, but the combination in English may be new (?). Anyway, everything not within the "establishment" is considered far-right these days, and since nobody has seen someone like Milei before in politics, they have no idea what to label him. So libertarian seems obvious, and far-right is added to everything, thus it becomes far-right libertarian. Milei approach has not been seen before from a libertarian politician, which is what makes it so interesting. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

To answer the OP, a conservative is someone who wants to keep things the way they are, as a reformist is someone who wants to change them. But for specific issues, that's context-specific. Argentina and the United States (for example) are radically different countries in many things, so a specific idea that would make you a conservatist in one country would make you a reformist in the other. An American journalist may say that "Milei is a conservative" so that his target audience understands the ideas he stands for (those of the American conservatives, the ones his audience will be familiar with), even if the word is not completely right within the Argentine context. Cambalachero (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Disputed: Abortion

The article presents his views in a misleading way in particular claiming he has a political position that is anti abortion. This seems to be incorrect, as the only sources on his policies on abortion states that the abortion law should be decided by a referendum. This means his views on abortion should be separated from his political positions, and categorized as his personal opinion. Source: [1] 193.69.198.165 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a law that allows abortion, the referendum would be to repeal it. Cambalachero (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the people of Argentina should decide, not whatever some politicans dictate. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So what? He himself said that in such a referendum he would support the law's repeal, what more do you want in support of his anti-abortion position? It's still anti-abortion even if Argentine people would agree with him and vote for the law's repeal. The same El País source you added support this. Davide King (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is the core of the problem. You are conflating personal opinions from political position. The political position is clear, which is that abortion laws should be determined by a referendum, not by the personal opinions of politicians.

His claim is further that the Argentinian people do not support the anti abortion law (i.e. its illegitimate). I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is true then the politicians have done exactly what he accuses them of, which is to enforce their morals on people that disagrees with them. If the people disagree with him, the abortion law remains unchanged.

As a religious person, he is welcome to have strong opinions on abortion, and the article should present that, as he has talked about it numerous times. But instead of presenting his actual political positions, making clear distinctions of his personal opinions and political positions, the article promotes sources with misleading statements, and omits information from sources that contradicts them. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That isn't how it works... He says he opposes abortion in rape cases, compared it to murder and theft, and said that he would repeal it if the referendum that he proposes is successful. Just because he proposes a referendum, that doesn't mean he isn't anti-abortion. Also where are those contradictions? If there are, it would be good of you to explain which ones; it wouldn't be as shock, as most politicians change many positions or contradict themselves, and Milei hasn't been immune to this. Davide King (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand the confusion, because you are used to politicians who are unable to have personal opinions without forcing their morals on others. This appears to make it difficult to understand his political position.

In the case of abortion, even libertarian cant agree how to interpret the moral aspects of it. It ultimately comes down to if you believe that life begins at conception or not, and if you believe the non-aggression-principle applies during pregnancy or not. There is also no clear consensus in the world on this topic either. So the only way to resolve this is to have support from the majority.

We can disagree all we want with his opinion on this topic, but i don't support misrepresentation. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no source on "Milei is against abortion in case of rape". In fact no one knows if he is pro or anti abortion on this specific topic. The only source of his supposed anti-abortion in case of rape is from a brazilian news source who is not trustworthy and the interview was held by videoconference.

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2021/09/economia-argentina-e-um-vulcao-a-ponto-de-estalar-diz-javier-milei-lider-dos-libertarios.shtml

If indeed he is anti-abortion in case of rape, that would be interesting since he is planning a referendum. Only if I could speak from the future I would add some information on this, I'm afraid. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Folha de S.Paulo is certainly a reliable source and cannot be accused of left bias (see the "Dilma Rousseff's criminal file" and "Rape accusation against Lula" sections), so thank you for proving a further reliable source in support of Milei's anti-abortion views even in cases of rape.

https://elcanciller.com/politica/milei--el-candidato-para-el-que-sus-padres--no-existen--y-el-aborto-es-un--conflicto-de-propiedad-_a6177e8df74e3b4514175072e This source supports precisely what you said, that he sees abortion as an issue of property but also supports his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape. It says: "'Given the characteristics under which the interruption is generated today, it is a murder,' he stated at the time and opposed abortion in case of rape by saying: 'Why is one crime compensated with another crime?'" It doesn't matter if one believes life begins at conception, which isn't a scientific fact and is a matter of dispute, whether we like it or not, it is considered still anti-abortion. I don't even know why we're discussing this in the first place. It's as clear as day per reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing it because I believe the interpretation in the article is misleading in some sections. It's improved quite a lot, but it still gives a false presentation. It is very clear to me that he does not have an anti-abortion agenda, beyond holding a referendum to see if the abortion law is legitimate. That does not seem controversial. The controversial aspect of this is his opinion on the topic, not his political position. I fail to see the problem of making this distinction in the article, what harm does it cause to be fully transparent on this? E.g. in the list of his controversial political positions, it is quite a serious omission. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point but have to respectfully disagree that it gives a false presentation. Again, it's not me but the reliable sources themselves we are citing that consider those to be anti-abortion positions. I mean, if one is opposed to abortion in all cases except if the mother is in danger (not even in rape cases that some anti-abortion rights would concede as the exception), that is generally considered an anti-abortion position, and the subject holding this position is usually called "anti-abortion", as El País, The Guardian, and Reuters did. We are transparent, We do say that he supports holding a referendum about the issue. Davide King (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

For the most part all aspects are highlighted, but the information is presented quite erratically, in different ways in different places. We do agree that El País, The Guardian, and Reuters says he is "anti-abortion", i only disagree with the framing, i.e. linking it to a political position, and omitting context in the same paragraph. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you write here the suggestions and wording you propose (before and after), so we could try to work it out? Davide King (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure;

---------------------------------------

• On social issues, such as abortion, Milei expressed opposition to the law that legalized it in 2020, and proposes to hold a referendum about the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill; he is characterized as a radical conservative.
• Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion. Controversial were his opposition to abortion in rape cases, his rejection of the inclusion of comprehensive sex education in schools, skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines, civilian firearm ownership support, legalization of organ trade, promotion of the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and climate change denialism. Due to those controversies and his radical conservative economic and social policies, his victory in the primaries was deemed an upset, and led to his characterization as a far-right populist.

We could simplify the introduction, and merge it in the lowest paragraph. Why not use less sensational writing and be more accurate?

"Many of Milei's proposals and statements have sparked controversy and confusion. He proposes to hold referendums for things like repealing the abortion law that made abortion legal in 2020, and closing the central bank. He has argued that abortion is morally wrong even in cases of rape, opposed the way comprehensive sex education is taught in schools, expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, proposed to legalize the sale of organs to reduce waiting lists for organ transplants ...

---------------------------------------

• Furthermore, he intends to revoke the law (Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill) that legalized abortion in Argentina, which was approved in 2020, and is against its decriminalization.

I don't think the AGI source is particularly good, it makes claims without providing any source, and contradicts other sources. I would just drop it entirely as its unclear what it adds to the article, which hasn't already been covered multiple times, or replace it with text from the abortion section later. The chequeado source is a fact checking site, so i think we should prioritize statements from this one if anything.

---------------------------------------

• 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.

Then another anti abortion comment being added in the middle of an unrelated section. I still have no idea why its included. What does it add to the article? Not only is it redundant, an opinion, and likely incorrect, it also makes the article difficult to read. The section is also about capitalism, communism and socialism specifically, not left or right. This addition must be a troll? :-) 193.69.198.165 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I will look into it and work on a way to improve the wording following your suggestions. :-) I think this can be easily done by adding a paragraph about social issues the same way we for the economic views, e.g. like I did here.

In fact, I do not think that holding a referendum about the 2020 abortion law is controversial and is not what the sources say, that is why is put in the sentence discussing his views about abortion; what is controversial is his opposition to abortion, including in cases of rape, and the possible criminalization if his proposed referendum is successful. As for abortion, your issues may be addressed by adding to the lead what we say in the body, namely that he sees abortion as a property issue, as morally wrong, etc. Now that I think about, it may warrant a paragraph for itself in the lead for social issues like abortion the same way we do for his economic views in the second paragraph.

As for the organ trade, it is like the referendum. It is not controversial his motivations behind his proposal (e.g. he wants to reduce waiting lists for organ transplants), it is controversial the proposal of legalizing the organ trade itself. As for the central bank abolition, we may also had his dollarization proposal, which may not be as controversial as the former but from I have read it is controversial nonetheless.

As for AGI, it does use fact checking. In fact, most sources do not use many sources or references like we do. Besides, his proposal of a referendum only came in August 2023, so this could explain some of the contradictions. As for The Economist, "legalizing abortion and creating a quota for trans people in government jobs" is included because they are considered part of his anti-left crusade. Davide King (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Unfortunately, they have been tagged. As you can see, I cannot make everyone happy, though I tried as a compromise and have the NPOV tag removed, you will have to discuss this with them too. Davide King (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review it. Its ofcourse important that the content in the article matches that of the sources, I'll do another check for that specifically. My point is that the article needs to be clear when paraphrasing and where multiple sources are contradictory or ambiguous.

Regarding the controversial section, I tried to rewrite those to be more 1:1 with the wordings of the sources used, and if that no longer makes it controversial, it brings in further questions. It would be better to use sources explicitly stating these as controversial views in that case.

Its very typical to get these "chinese whispers" problems, where articles are paraphrasing each other and not citing to the primary source directly. Thats how we ended up with Milei "admiring Trump", when he only said "almost natural affinity" in a different context. The Bloomberg interview confirms this again.

Please also check again;

• The Economist part, "legalizing abortion and creating a quota for trans people in government jobs" is included because they are considered part of his anti-left crusade.

Are you sure this is related to this section? Including it in this section implies that abortion and trans quota are communist/socialist ideologies. Abortion is certainly not, because even Libertarians disagree on this topic. Trans quota could be linked to his comments about "Cultural Marxism", but then that really belongs in that section. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Economist, among other sources, explicitily listed those as controversial. I think the other Economist piece is saying that Milei, or at least those right-wingers who support it, consider them to be leftist ideologies. This can be reworded to made this more clear. Davide King (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm having doubts if The Economist can be considered reliable for this article. The information they present appears highly dubious, and opinionated. They don't include any journalist references to their articles, so the whole source seems more like an opinion newspaper. They are also described as radical centrist on their Wikipedia article, so this indicates an extreme bias. I'm sure they may be useful for some types of news, but for this article it seems very questionable.

Do we have any other sources that can be used? Preferably the ones that include references to primary sources, so it appears much less as an opinion piece, but more like a commentary. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course NOT. But I agree with you that a proponent of organ market and the rest can in no way be termed as "far-right". We should not describe him based on one point - abortion, which is, moreover, quite "strange" of him. And yes, I also agree with you that he is very, very far from many, many countries that he does not plan to ban abortion, he plans a referendum (and, by the way, Argentines quite much support abortion, so a repeal plan will fail anyway). And also I personally did not hear anything from him that abortion is against religion, and, moreover, should be banned BASED on religion. Maybe I did not check well. --95.24.70.16 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because the referendum may fail, even though he explicitily stated his opposition to abortion (including in cases of rape when many conservatives who oppose abortion would instead support) and that he would support "Repeal" in the referendum, he is not anti-abortion? This is a clear example of the duck test.

Again, once one understands that far right does not mean only neo-Nazis or racists but those holding extremist or radical views (can we at least agree that his economic policies are right-wing, right?), the argument falls. He also is not described as far right due to a single point, that of abortion; he is described as far right because he advocates for radical or extremist economic policies (it is the same thing when considering communist or radical socialist policies as far left), opposes abortion even in cases of rapes, compared gender identity to identifying as a cougar (it is a popular strawman used by opponents of transgender rights), denies climate change, supports free firearms among civilians (in Argentina, firearms are resctricted, so that would be a radical policy, especially because it cannot be based on a constitutional right to bear guns as in the United States), and believes in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

And to think that we even explain this on the final paragraph of the lead... Davide King (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Its not a question if he is against abortion or not. The article explicitly states that as his political position, implying that he is intending to change the law to match his opinion. That's simply misleading. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ref this;

Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion. Controversial were his opposition to abortion in rape cases, 193.69.198.165 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

He does support selling children, which looks to a sane person not a position an anti-abortion activist would defend. That said, a person can have these two views, although selling kids or organs is not based on any Catholic teaching but it could be compatible with his libertarian worldview, something which is not clear at the moment. I think for the sake of clarity it would be better to wait a few more weeks or perhaps some journalist or political scientist could look deeper into this subject. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"implying that he is intending to change the law to match his opinion", that's only in your mind. We are not saying any such thing, we're reporting what the man himself said, namely that he opposes abortion, including in rape cases, that if elected president he would propose a referendum about the 2020 law that legalized, and that in such case, he would come in support of a repeal. "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." As for the rest, see "Milei: El candidato para el que sus padres 'no existen' y el aborto es un 'conflicto de propiedad'" and a pletheora of othe sources that are in body and are not used to support that inline but say the same thing. Davide King (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't appear to be the only one objecting to this. What is your definition of political position then, if its not related to the political polices they intend to implement? We should find a way to write this that is non-ambiguous, and presenting things plain and simple. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not about me, it's what about reliable sources say, and they say he's anti-abortion or opposed to abortion because he opposes it in mostly all cases, including in rape cases, except when the mother is in danger. And because he's proposing to hold a referendum about the 2020 law, and that he would support a repeal. He doesn't not need to explicitily say "I'm anti-abortion" (he certainly never said he's pro-abortion...), all that is needed is that reliable sources characterizes it as such. This is no different from a racist (I don't mean any racist, let's say a white supremacist) denying being a racist, and reliable sources describing them as racist.

Because yes, even white supremacissts have at times denied of being racists, which we may report, but we are not like: "Oh, he denies being racist, so let's remove the white-supremacists label that every reliable sources is using to described him because he denied it..." If someone deny being a racist and reliable sources described them as racist (such as in the case of a white supremacist), we describe him as a racist and white supremacist because of WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:DUCK.

Milei and abortion is no different. One is not pro-abortion just because they may support it in a single and more extremist case, such as when the mother is in danger. Just like someone is not anti-abortion because they may support abortion only up to 20 or 24 weeks. In Milei's case, he supports it only in a single, extreme situation. Remember that neutrality goes both ways. Just like is not neutral to state far right as fact, it is not neutral denying this. Davide King (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anyone denying he is against abortion in this thread, not sure why you keep repeating that. The criticism is how its being presented. The sources are not in agreement here, that is the problem. The chequeado source went in depth on this, and they explicitly state there is no mention of any plans to change the abortion law in his political program. Even the interview they include confirms that. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

El País, The Guardian, and Reuters all say "anti-abortion" in reference to Milei's position on the issue. And to use your same argument, the Chequeado citation is "contradicted" by sources explicitily saying that he would put the 2020 law on a referendum, including Chequeado, who quotes him as saying: "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." Davide King (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Its very confusing how we can read the same things, and derive entirely different conclusions from it. There are differing sources, some make one claim, some make another claim.

Things you could state which appears to be in agreement with all the sources, and are not misleading;

- Milei opposes abortion.

- Milei has the religious belief of life starting at conception.

- Milei thinks the abortion law is illegitimate (i.e. does not have support of the Argentinian population)

- Milei thinks abortion is a moral problem, that opposes the right to life / is murder.

- Mileis political position is to hold a referendum, to determine if the law is legitimate or not.

- Mileis political position is to support the majority populations opinion on abortion, whichever way they decide.

What is misleading is to conflate these, and present parts of this without context. I truly fail to understand the opposition to writing things clearly, it seems clear as day to me. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

All of those positions you listed are in fact considered "anti-abortion" positions. It is one thing to say "I personally oppose abortion but support it to be legal". They are not considered "anti-abortion" just because they personally oppose abortion; in fact, they are considered pro-abortion rights because they still support legalized abortion. So if one personally opposes abortion and also would support repealing its legalization, that is considered "anti-abortion".

What seems to be confusing you is that Milei is not considered anti-abortion because he believes that life begins at conception (personal view); he is considreed anti-abortion because he would oppose it in most cases and propose its repeal (political position). It does not matter that this is done through a referendum because he actually said that he would support the 2020 law repeal (again, political position, not a mere personal view).

I say this as someone with years of experience here on Wikipedia and who have read many articles about abortion, so I know which positions are considered pro-abortion rights or anti-abortion. From this, I also learned that pro-choice and pro-life are better to be avoided because they are biased towards each position, and that pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion are the more neutral wording.

It seems you think that Milei does not actually support repealing the law but from the man himself he said not just that he would support the people's will but expressed his hope that they choose the repeal. "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." The first part confirms that he support repeal, and last part just further confirms his anti-abortion position. That abortion is murder is like the main position of the anti-abortion movement. Davide King (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think its a problem that the libertarian position is lost when stated this way. He is saying; "I personally oppose abortion but support it to be legal if the Argentinian people disagree with me". Most readers will have no idea what the libertarian position is, and assume it means what they are used to. His personal views does not matter to the same extent as a conservative who would actively use his position to impose his ideas. As a congressman he would probably vote against abortion that did not have support from a referendum. But its unclear what he would do if it had support from a referendum, would he vote against, abstain, or even vote in favor? Its ambiguous, my guess would be abstain, especially if he had the swing vote. Its not unthinkable he would vote in favor in that situation, but i haven't heard his position on that directly. If he was not from a libertarian background, this discussion would have been over and dead a long time ago, but libertarian are not easy to fit into the standard buckets 193.69.198.165 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"I personally oppose abortion but support it to be legal if the Argentinian people disagree with me." Well, that isn't reflected in his statements, such as "Let's see if the Argentines believe in the murder of a defenseless human in the womb of the mother", implying that he thinks bad of Argentians who support legal abortion because according to him abortion is murder. His position is more like "I personally oppose abortion, and I will hold a referendum about it and hope that Agentinian people comes to my same conclusion ("And, if the result is in my favor, the law is eliminated"), that abortion is murder, and so is repealed." He has not said what he would do if the referendum would go against him. I can assume he may support the people's will and move on, but that's not what he said and we must stick to facts, such as statements by the man himself. If he has said that he would respect a referendum that would keep abortion legal, then that should certainly be added to provide further context Davide King (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the "I personally oppose abortion but support it to be legal if the Argentinian people disagree with me" is my interpretation, so we can not include it this way in the article. Your version also seems accurate. The rest is ambiguous, and speculation. Even though some sources make certain claims, Chequeado tried to fact check this, to get a more accurate presentation, and it ended up being much less clear than some sources claim. Unfortunately he has not been more specific about this. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

When we have sources describing him as "anti-abortion", including those who may disagree with the far-right label, why are we discussing this again? I think we already cover his views on abortion and what he has said about it. You are the one who is reading ambiguations or speculation where there is none. The sources are clear as day on this. Davide King (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever discussed that, I've only commented on framing and wording, as I believe accuracy is important. Lets stick to high quality sources for the phrasing that is used the article. Chequeado appears like a good source. Other sources that include primary source references should also be acceptable. Secondary sources that just reference other secondary sources are redundant, we have better quality sources we can use directly. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the issue, since we never say he describes himself as "anti-abortion" (although The Guardian says precisely that), if you think that is the issue. I think we give a correct summary of his views. He is personally and morally opposed to abortion, which he considers to be murder, and see it through the crisms of property and as an ownership issues, considering the fetus an individual ("I am against abortion because I believe in the life project of others. The woman can choose about her body, but what she has inside her womb is not her body, it is another individual.") In August 2023, he proposed to hold a referendum about the 2020 law, if he is elected president. If Argentians supports repeal, which he said would be his option if his proposal comes to fruction ("And, if the result is in my favor, the law is eliminated"), then he would repeal the law as president. Please, let me know if I missed anything and how is that not a good summary of his views. Davide King (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The summary seems fine to me, this thread focused more specifically on this text;

"Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion. Controversial were his opposition to abortion in rape cases,"

I.e., the interpretation is not found in the sources directly, its a lose paraphrasing, which is not linked to a source that confirms this specifically. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

All of that is sourced to The Economist (that is the source of those being controversies), the other ref simply verify that he indeed opposes abortion even in rape cases, same for the other refs that verify he the single claim; it is The Economist and many other sources in the body that tie them together. Per WP:MOSLEAD, there is no requisite to have refs in the lead but we have them to avoid users removing stuff as unsourced when it is sourced in the body. As long as it is sourced in the body, it is fine. Davide King (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

These are highly contentious statements in a BLP, we need proper sources, also in the lead. The Economist source is an opinion piece, and full of disputed factual statements. It contains no primary source references that allows for fact checking. We should consider removing it in its entirety, there are several other sources that cover these topics better. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That is absurd. A primary source would be Milei's words in an interview, not an article by The Economist, which is a secondary source. Also news articles almost never cite references like we do, so your argument is absurd. By your own arguments, almost all news sources would not be acceptable but thankfully your vision is not how Wikipedia works. If you do not like the ref, go at WP:RSN and make your case. Davide King (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt thats the standards Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by. If what you claim is true, anything ever stated in a news source can be included as fact on Wikipedia. Even between sources used in the article, there are many disputed claims within The Economist reference. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is the thing, who are those disputed facts and who is disputing them? Is Milei himself or other reliable secondary sources? Because we are not here to promote him either. Davide King (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to secondary sources. There are many claims here which are not unison in all the sources, with different versions/interpretations used. Without a primary source included, it becomes very hard to verify, check and compare sources;

"owing in no small part to his radically conservative economic and social policies"

"denies the existence of climate change (he argues that it is an invention of "cultural Marxism")"

"He is also against gun control of any kind by the government"

"fully dollarise the economy"

These don't appear very wrong, but may not be entirely accurate. Also some opinion statements in the article. News articles on Milei appear to be infamously inaccurate, so trying to fact check these as good as possible. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems normal to me as he achieved significant international notability, there are ongoing elections, he may change views, news source may not reflect that yet, etc. The important thing is that they do not say totally different thing. From what I have seen, they mainly differs in details, not in substance.

"owing in no small part to his radically conservative economic and social policies", this does not seems to be controversial. Many sources used in the body and others I have read described him as radical policies, and he has been described as ultraconservative by other sources. In fact, the reason why because he has been labelled far right is not because he is a neo-Nazis but because he proposes radical right-wing policies. You complained that it is not explained why he is called far right, and now you complain we cannot explain this?

"denies the existence of climate change (he argues that it is an invention of 'cultural Marxism')", this too seems non-controversial. He literally said that climate change is "a socialist lie".

"He is also against gun control of any kind by the government", again, where is the contradiction? He wants to liberalize gun laws and this is something that many sources have cited in their profile about Milei.

"fully dollarise the economy", this may be the more controversial but I would wait for more sources to reflect the fact he does not want to do that, since sources have clearly described his dollarization proposal. As you consider abolition of the central bank as de facto dollarization, where is the issue? He has not refrained from his central bank abolition proposal.

All of those statements by The Economist piece are corroborated by other reliable sources. They may well be all wrong, but remember WP:TRUTH: "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth." As you can see, I did not use everything that The Economist said as fact or even added it to the article.

Because as I noted below, I distinguished between views that were corroborated by other sources, and the personal views of the author, such as "many of which, in our view, will not be palatable to the median voter", that are more clearly opinionable, even though this part was also supported by Reuters.

"Jared Lou, a portfolio manager at William Blair Investment Management, said that Milei had made himself the 'front-runner' but there was lots of uncertainty. 'One factor that may help Milei in the presidential elections is that he's an outsider and voters are frustrated,' he said. Lou added his views on promoting gun ownership, anti-abortion policies and dollarizing the economy - something most Argentines oppose - could ultimately put off some voters. A dollar-peso peg introduced in the 1990s brought short-term benefits but ended in an ugly devaluation. 'Many of the policies he has campaigned on are viewed as fairly radical by the electorate.'" Davide King (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact, that piece is positive towards Milei but even The Economist, who shares economic liberalism, cannot pretend there have been no controversies about Milei. "The libertarian lawmaker espouses a number of controversial policy positions, many of which, in our view, will not be palatable to the median voter. Mr Milei also holds fringe views on several social issues. For example, he is strongly opposed to abortion, even in cases where the pregnancy is a result of sexual assault. He is also against gun control of any kind by the government, denies the existence of climate change (he argues that it is an invention of 'cultural Marxism') and has expressed scepticism about the efficacy of covid-19 vaccines." We do not say the opinioned thing like "many of which, in our view, will not be palatable to the median voter", we only use it to support that those are controversies, all of which have been corroborated by many other sources that are used to support different inlines to avoid WP:OVERCITE but that also support that claim and describe them as controversies, etc. Davide King (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"In fact that piece is positive to him..."

That is simply your opinion. Irrelevant to the issue. Mreittmet2 (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ultraliberal

Source 120 as of right now https://forbes.co/2022/06/08/editors-picks/quien-le-teme-a-javier-milei correctly point out his ultraliberal proposals and thinking. In other parts of the article, however, some people are using ultraliberal and ultraconservative as interchangeable terms, something which I don't find in the sources themselves.

Recommended reading: LINGUISTICS An Introduction to Language and Communication, 6th edition - The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2010. Bbvvcad12 (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

They are not used as interchangeable terms. He is called ultraconservative due to his social views, and ultraliberal due to his economic views. Some may consider both views conservative since Argentina is still a capitalist country and he does not want to transform into a socialist one but return to the more neoliberal model of the 1990s. Davide King (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact, as we note at Conservatism, it is not even a contradiction. "Conservative thought has varied considerably as it has adapted itself to existing traditions and national cultures. For example, some conservatives advocate for greater economic intervention, while others advocate for a more laissez faire free-market economic system. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues." Milei belongs to the current supporting the laissez-faire free-market economic system. We also have Conservative liberalism and Liberal conservatism. Certainly, if someone is from the United States or Canada, it may sound weird or a contradiction but it is not. Davide King (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"Certainly, if someone is from the United States or Canada, it may sound weird or a contradiction but it is not"

So he is not a fascist[far right] libertarian then.

Would you be offended if I ask you if you have some type of reading comprehension issue? Mreittmet2 (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Please, stop making personal attacks. Where do we say that he is a fascist? Far right does not equate fascism, it is much broader than that. As shown by the IP below, anarcho-capitalism is considered a radical right ideology, perhaps it is you having "some type of reading comprehension issue", not me? Davide King (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I open this discussion just to clarify a few things:

The term far-right and radical right has been used for years in the United States of America to describe right-wing libertarian populism. Just think of certain militia movement groups, such as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters who are also described as right-wing libertarians (and far-right); or the Mises Caucus of the American Libertarian Party.

One of the main reasons is the lightness with which they support "the right to discriminate" which is incompatible with the "freedom from discrimination" (typical of modern liberals).

Murray Rothbard, the best known anarcho-capitalist, was against Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and had relations with various segregationist politicians (e.g. Strom Thurmond and David Duke). Let us remember that Rothbard's best known intellectual heir - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - supports exclusionary covenants (which are now illegal). In this sense, right-wing libertarians are reactionary and therefore can be considered more right-wing than mainstrem conservatives (such as neoconservatives).

On abortion there is a dedicated article instead, some right-wing libertarians are anti-abortion and it is no secret. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I would also recall other reactionary practices that anarcho-capitalists support, e.g. debt bondage, child selling, child labor, and contract slavery (see Walter Block). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I already noted reading scholars who noted similarities between right-wing populists and right-wing libertarians. If one understands this, one understands why they have been considered or described as far right or radical right, none of which are limited to neo-Nazis or white supremacists but also include those radical right-wing populists and right-wing libertarians. The latter's extremism do not lie in social policies like fascists but on the economy, although as noted by the IP it cannot be denied that in practice they also took reactionary views on social issues.

To add what the IP said, there are left-wing libertarians, who were the original libertarians (Rothbard acknowledged this in the 1960s and the fact libertarian was used to refer to anarchists, libertarian socialists, and other left-wing philosophies), then there are the modern American libertarians who, in fact, are radical neoliberals (they would represent a much more radical version of centrist liberals) who call themselves libertarians because liberal in the United States represents left-leaning liberalism (thus they took the libertarian name), and then there are those right-wing libertarians, who also often take conservative social positions and thus have been described as part of the radical right. Milei seems to fit the latter camp. He does not seem to take some of those more reactionary positions, apart from abortion, but he is considered radical right because he adopted right-wing populist rethoric, and often times right-wing populists are considered part of the radical right.

I hope this will help to understand why reliable sources have described, among other labels, Milei as far right. Because I can confirm, from what I have read, that what the IP said is essentially correct. Milei may not share some of their more reactionary views but his paleolibertarian strategy (right-wing populism), in addition to his radical economic policies like the ordan trade, puts him in the right-wing libertarian grouping. Let us hope we get no more questions about sources not explaining why they describe him as radical right or far right. Davide King (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have sources describing this and linking it to Milei, great. So far the inline sources are very weak, and will continue to be critized until something substantial like this is sourced. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources link Milei to right-wing libertarianism and the anarcho-capitalist current. There is no need for him to explicitly explain position by position of these ideologies. If he is against the reactionary positions of such ideologies, he should not have described himself as an adherent of such ideologies.

The use of "far-right" to describe, for example, the ancaps ("anarcho-capitalists") is already attested:

https://www.poynter.org/commentary/analysis/2021/a-guide-to-the-identities-and-language-of-the-far-right/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

p.s. @Davide King @193.69.198.165

Goodwin, B. (2016) Using political ideas. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. p. 151 (ISBN: 9781478762119)

Howewer, enough has been said to show that most anarchists have nothing in common with those libertarians of the far-right, the anarcho-capitalists, who wish to see consumer capitalism reign... 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

So he is indeed anarcho-capitalist as your sourced cited or far right conservative? I don't follow Mreittmet2 (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

In the conventional single-axis left-right political spectrum, the far right is represented by the reactionary, while the right is represented by conservatism (what is considered conservative today, clearly – the conservative ideas of the Ancien Régime today are considered reactionary).

Anarcho-capitalism, and much of right-wing libertarianism in general propose reactionary ideas: for example, anarcho-capitalism supports timocracy (a 6th century BC form of government). Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his Democracy: The God That Failed speaks explicitly of "private communities" controlled by "elites" of property owners.

In addition, all other reactionary policies must be added: abolition of labor laws, support of child labor, support of child selling, support for contract slavery, support for debt bondage, support for exclusionary convenants and a strong right to discriminate (segregation academies, etc.) - the latter includes the right of private road owners to restrict freedom of movement.

In any case, the use of "far right" for right-wing libertarianism is nothing new, as evidenced by the sources on Google Books. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Even by doing an immediate search, one can immediately see that the term "far-right libertarian" is used on various texts:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22far-right+libertarian%22&sca_esv=560734445&tbm=bks&ei=swztZLCjJrmHxc8Pt8WJ2A4&ved=0ahUKEwjwyL-4oYCBAxW5Q_EDHbdiAusQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22far-right+libertarian%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIhciZmFyLXJpZ2h0IGxpYmVydGFyaWFuIkiKMlD9Clj7MHACeACQAQCYAUmgAfYDqgEBOLgBA8gBAPgBAYgGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-books 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

One of these texts is: The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements - Page 527 "these militia organizations often revived long-since discarded state militia insignia and organization names while simultaneously aligning them with contemporary far-right libertarian politics (Crothers 2004)" 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Davide King (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@93.45.229.98, perhaps you may add this sourced content, if it is not already present, at the relevant articles? So that people understand why Milei's positions are considered far right, without him being a fascist but a radical right or far-right libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, when clicking at Far-right politics. Because it is in line with other sources I have read about the topic, and because you provided high-quality sources, such as academic books. One does not need to be a fascist to be considered far right, it is broader than that, as you showed. Davide King (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King The far-right article is protected; a discussion should also be made about the presence of anarcho-capitalism on the liberalism article (the only source is Ralph Raico).

If you can, please add the sources in the "radical right" section of far-right politics. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

p.s. Pinochetism deserves to be mentioned, in my opinion, at the beginning of the far-right politics article. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Academic career

The article contains a claim that Milei is the author of over 50 academic papers, and the citation refers to the WEF profile page. This claim is unsubstantiated though, a quick look at the most reputable source of academic data (Scopus - https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7004452442) shows only 2 papers --actually one, since it's a repeated index-- with zero citations. I would move to remove the claim of 50 academic papers which seems preposterous under the evidence. I would remove this in a couple of days unless a more reputable source comes up 131.228.216.131 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

All terms "conservative", "right-wing", "traditionalist", "paleo" should be IMMEDIATELY replaced for "anti-abortion", because the question of abortion is the ONLY question on which Milei is (somewhat) ALLIED to conservatives (though Milei is an atheist). On all other questions Milei is culturally far-left. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say; they may well be wrong but Wikipedia is supposed to report them, and everything is assumed to be the views as expressed in sources, not Wikipedia. Anyway, Milei isn't an atheist, he says that he is Catholic, and none of the policies he support are "far-right", by whatever you think it means. Drug liberalization and same-sex marriage has been supported by some right-leaning people and groups; his support for same-sax marriage isn't based in any left-wing notion of equality, he just doesn't care or have issues with it, and in fact believes that marriage is a contract and is opposed to it as an institution, which is in line with right-wing liberals who see society through the lens of propierty and individuals. Davide King (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: Terms in "reliable sources" can contradict Wikipedia definitions. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

What does that even mean? That WP:RELIABLESOURCES doesn't reflect its dictionary definition because you think that what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources aren't really reliable? I'm still wondering about a single "far-left" position that Milei has taken. Even his stance on transgender rights isn't "far-left"; he simply isn't concerned about it, as shown by his strawman argument of people identifying as cougars, as in the animal, not the slang. But he doesn't attack them like the radical right, though he shares their argument in regards to funding, which some of his critics may in fact regard as opposed to trans rights and in general a very right-wing position. So much for those alleged "far-left" policies. Davide King (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: "he doesn't attack them like the radical right". So why the hack is "ultraconservative" still in the article? Believe me, Bullrich is much-much-much more conservative, at least in her rhetorics. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, I don't doubt that. My explanation is that unlike fascists, who were considered far-right due their extremist views on social issues and who aren't the sole definition of being far right, I would say that he is considered far right due to his extremist view on economic issues. Similarly, "ultraconservative" may also refer not to social issues but to his economic issues, e.g. as an ultra defender of capitalism, perhaps considering the economy of Argentina not "true capitalism", since he's an anarcho-capitalism. Anyway, our personal opinions do not hold weight and reliable sources may well me wrong on this but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (WP:TRUTH). Davide King (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: Argentina is at the moment one of the most communist countries in the world. We should not take terminology even from reliable sources, when it contradicts Wikipedia terminology. Sources are for facts, not terms. When the terms contradict, we should substitute them for Wikipedia terms. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The economy of Argentina certainly does contradict communism, so there's no issue or contradiction. It may be considered "communist" only in the broadest sense, as used by Milei, that any drift away from pure liberalism but that would make most of the world "communist"... Davide King (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: Believe me, in 2023, under Fernandez and Cristina, Argentina is NOT like most of the world. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fully aware of the hyperinflation and economic issues, and Argentine people have all my support and wishes for a return to a healthy economy, but hyperinflation and economic issues are not synonymous for communism, even though you may think they are the same thing. Many non-Communist countries that are generally considered to be capitalist also underwent similar issues, including Argentina itself, which remain a capitalist country. If you use capitalism only for the purer liberal countries, it doesn't count because that's now how it's commonly defined. Argentina is considered a capitalist economy. Davide King (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: It's not because Argentina engaged in a war or something, or lifted the monopoly of its' fiat currency, or its' export commodity prices fell on the world market. It's because they're printing money like hell, imposing huge taxes and regulating everything. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Argentina never had a socialist/social-democratic government by academic definition of Western European socialism. Peronists alternated between corporativist and economically nationalist policies (e.g. with Kirchner) to extremely liberal policies (e.g. with Menem). When they haven't been in government, there have been either centrist liberal governments (Alfonsin), liberal conservatives (Macri), or far-right military juntas. Davide King (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: Libertarianism is the total OPPOSITE of fascism. Fascism is against freedom in all questions, while libertarianism is in favor of freedom in all questions. --95.24.70.16 (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Far-right politics are not limited to fascism and can included extremist libertarian views like abolition of the state, just like the far left include authoritarian and libertarian socialists. In fact, scholars noted that there's an overlap between right-wing libertarianism and right-wing populism. Davide King (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The Argentinean economy is a quite protectionist. The economy is heavily regulated, classic Keynesian, with frequent price controls, importation and exportation is a nightmare, buying foreign currency is very restricted etc. I'm not sure capitalist is the correct definition, at least it does not describe it very well. According to https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking, Argentina is a "mostly unfree economy", so it depends where you set the bar. But the economic policies are more inherited from fascism (peronism), rather than communism, so perhaps FdT should be put the far-right definition too. ;-) Since Milei puts all collectivists in the bucket of "zurdos"/leftists, he has no distinction. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: Funding is about economics, so should not be in the discussion at all. Milei is a libertarian, not conservative, fantastically more far-left than Bullrich. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above, we do write that he's a (right-wing)* libertarian, and even if what you said were true, we must follow reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia works, so you may not like it. I hope you can still contribute though.

*I suppose the given reliable sources use "right-wing" due to his anti-communist/socialist rethoric and even those who use simply the "libertarian" label, they generally still see him, whether true or not, as part of the Right. Davide King (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: Please see the Wikipedia definition of Conservatism. It has nothing to do with property. Conservatism is about Theocracy and Inquisition, of which Milei is certainly not the kind. Organ market is certainly far-left. Drugs and Same-sex are certainly far-left. What are those "right-leaning groups"? They're probably laissez-faire, not right-leaning. Nowadays, even terms "right" and "left" are not used in economics, let alone "conservative". Milei is a libertarian, a far-left in cultural sphere just like the trotskysts, but with a special view on abortion, but not based on religion, but based upon how he sees the libertarian right to life. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You need multiple sources (according to Wikipedia guidelines of a source) that states Javier Milei as having "far-left" policies. Wikipedia, as Davide points out, does not create its own content, it just summarizes other sources. There are many sources stating him incorrectly as conservative, but unfortunately it is not up to Wikipedia to correct them. I made the same mistake myself, but this is the only way for Wikipedia to remain "neutral", in the sense that it just cites other sources. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

In no way am I proposing to put "left-wing". That terminology should be gotten rid of completely. If we put just "left-wing" that would of course be misleading. "Culturally mostly left-wing" would be OK, but "libertarian" is more informative. --95.24.60.75 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, while I disagree that Left and Right are not useful, I agree that the state (Left) and market/property (Right) is a bad oversimplification because both Left and Right have been pro-state and pro-market for different reasons and at different times. There's indeed a free-market tradition within the Left, dating back to early liberals who were anti-capitalists but free-market, and that this isn't a contradiction if one understands how they defined those terms. For various reasons, I don't think Milei fits this tradition.

Again, as I wrote above, all that matters is what reliable sources say, and if they use the far-right label (even The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraph did), we have to respect it. The important thing is that it's not stated as fact (unless he is listed in an academic book about the far right, for example, which would make it due). The more our readers understand that Wikipedia isn't necessarily supporting what it's written but is merely summarizing what reliable sources say, the better it will be and the less we will argue about. All those arguments would be avoided so we could focus on improving the articles themselves. Davide King (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Flilllcn (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with "Far-right" is that it is a contentious label and goes against the Tone on biographies of living persons. Far-right politics is not "Right-wing politics, but more enthusiast". It is about neonazism, racial supremacism, xenophobia, rejection of democracy, etc. As far as I know, Milei has never been seriously accused of any of such things. This is serious stuff, especially if sources simply use it as a mere adjective in passing, without going into an in-depth analysis of it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The same goes for far left but, whether we like it or not, we have to follow reliable sources; when even right-wing reliable sources used the label, it can't considered a contentious label, especially when it's attributed as a description [by reliable sources] and not stated as fact. The difference is that there is some clearer consensus among scholars and an academic handbook of the far-right (The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right), while for the far-left among scholars there's still disagreement of where it begins and one of the few agreements is being left of the Left; it's so broad and one really whether it's a good thing to categorize libertarian socialists with Stalinists. Far-right is not limited to those you named, and also includes extremist conservatism, which is how Milei has been described, and is closer to fascism than, say, libertarian socialism is to Stalinism, since in practice fascism has been very conservative. The way I see it, by far-right, I assume they mean the radical right, which scholars categorizes as a subset of the far right that does not oppose democracy; it's still far right, just as subset of it. Davide King (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Cambalachero.

If you remove all the headline news, not a single source actually describes the use of the far-right label. Its just a label slapped onto some articles in the headers and opening, but without any clarification. It also seems like an international media thing, as local media in Argentina has mostly called him a "right-wing libertarian".

A more balanced approach here would be to cite that specifically, following the primary win he headlined in international media as "far-right" etc, but any proposal to even dispute this term is rejected by one single person, i do not see anyone else defending it here, while nearly a dozen have complained in this Talk page. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Milei and Villarruel

There is a footnote that has all this: "Commentators observed that Milei and his running mate, Victoria Villarruel, held differences on certain issues. Milei is fine with the 2010 law that legalized same-sex marriage in Argentina, while Villarruel supports civil unions but is opposed to egalitarian marriage, and disagrees with him on questions like organ trade legalization, on the grounds that the human body is not a good; their differences of views have been explained as philosophical issues due to Milei's economist background. They also held different views on the last Argentine military dictatorship and the Dirty War. Villarruel is the daughter of a military personnel and engages in historical revisionist accounts of the military dictatorship, and has been accused of Argentine state terrorism denial [es]. While Milei publicily expressed that he is not a defender of it, he has questioned the 30,000 disappeared toll."

This seems like a clear case of WP:COATRACK. Villarruel has her own article, and that's the correct place to detail her ideas, not here. Milei and Villarruel having different ideas about something is hardly noteworthy: all presidents and their vicepresidents will disagree about something, if we look in enough detail. If at some point there is an actual public dispute over some topic, that would be something else. But right now, in this article (one of the references cited) Villarruel clarifies that her diferences with Milei are merely philosophical and not about government policies that they have actually planned to implement. In other words, trivia. Cambalachero (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed again, this could be relevant for an article about the political program they front together, but not an article on Milei. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That is why it is a footnote, but it does not change the relevancy as a footnote; also one of the two sources focuses on Milei, not just Villarruel, so the argument should fall. I believe that it receeived enough attention to warrant at least a footnote. In fact, this BBC article, which is a profile of Milei, also discusses Villarruel, so who are we to say it is not relevant? If observers deemed those differences between the presidential candidate and his running mate significant enough to mention when discussing Milei, that is enough. Davide King (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because something was said in a reference does not mean we have to say it as well... or that we have to say it in the same format, or here. News outlets release short reportings of things that have just happened, that should be understandable on their own, and that are fleeting: they may be kept as archives, but they leave the front page in mere hours, to be replaced by more recent news. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a wiki with an article about each big "topic" (events, organizations, etc, and in this case, a biography). Unlike news articles, our articles are meant to be permanent, complete... and organized in a great network of linked articles.

That means that, unlike other sources, we do not need to lose the focus to explain things about some other topic, because that other topic has its own space where such info can be detailed. Articles that fail to stay focused on their designated topic are coatrack articles, and should be fixed when found. Cambalachero (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"News outlets release short reportings of things that have just happened, that should be understandable on their own, and that are fleeting." As I wrote above, here is the thing: the same happens when the subject of an article is involved in a current event or achives international recognition, and the article grows from a stub to a detailed, long article. With time and better sourcing, as biographies and academic books and articles (e.g. the best sources) become available, they will help us understand what is due and what is not.

You wrote: "Just because something was said in a reference does not mean we have to say it as well... or that we have to say it in the same format, or here." But this could apply to pretty much everything that is in the article, which is suffering of recentism because the subject is involved in the 2023 Argentine general elections and in August 2023 achieved international recognition. There is very little, if anything, of the better sources available (e.g. biographies, academic books and articles, etc.), so we have to rely on the best news sources to build the article.

But as I was saying, why do you have an issue with this footnote? Again, your argument ("Just because something was said in a reference does not mean we have to say it as well") could be used to favour the removal of most content, yet you appear to oppose only the Milei–Santoro thing and this footnote about Milei's running mate, Victoria Villarruel. Even the coatrack argument is weak because it is now a footnote, and explanatory notes are allowed. If all refs focalized on Villaruel, you may have had a point, but this is also discussed in articles fully dedicated to Milei, so it cannot be considered a coatrack if reliable sources established a connection and when it is simply a footnote for further context. Davide King (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Cambalachero, but flooding the article with headline news seems to be the approach here. I think we should apply best effort, actually trying to find multiple aspects to things, not just filling the article with whatever headline news we can find. The article would also be much more interesting if we included the opposing statements and sources, but there seems to be little interest in that. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you actually have WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources to propose, you should definitely provide them. You really are new here, most of Wikipedia articles begin like those, we have to rely of recent news sources to at least move the article away from being a stub, and then with time, as we split it into other articles (for example, one about the subject's political position) or remove undue stuff, it gets better. Good thing you were not here when "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" was created. Davide King (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of news sources that present multiple aspects to each paragraph, and include more than half a sentence on a topic, its just a matter of prioritizing them. If this article is a good representation of Wikipedia editing, perhaps someone should propose raising the quality bar a bit? Adding attribution, and being accurate when taking text from sources does not sound like bad ideas when articles are in this state....? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is not my fault if many news sources making a profile of Milei are like this, citing his comparisons to Trump and Bolsonaro, dollarization and central bank abolition proposals, claimate change as "a socialist lie", the buying and selling of organs, opposition to abortion, and the claim that sexual education is "part of a 'post-Marxist agenda' that aims to destroy the concept of family". Since one reasonable complaint is that this article is too much focused on Milei's political views and positions, making the lead even more wordly in describing his political positions does not sound to be a good idea if the complaint by BastianMAT is correct. I assume that you are referring mainly to the lead because the body should be much more balanced towards what you propose, and includes several quotes by Milei and clarifications. It is just that the lead is really supposed to be concise and summary, so we cannot add all the context you want for the lead without making it overtly wordly. We have the body where we can contextualize everything. Davide King (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It is our fault we are not able to write a better article than one journalist in a newspaper. We have far more time and far more people to fact check and make a proper article than this one journalist had. We can even describe each topic, with multiple perspectives and sources. The quality we output here should be at least 10x of any one article we find. I spend at least 10-15 minutes researching every addition i make, for complex topics it can be hours. There are plenty of sufficiently good sources to make a useful article, and one-sided perspectives are the opposite of useful in my opinion. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the moderator's closure at WP:DRN. WP:NPOVN, considering the NPOV tag, seems to be the venue where we could solve this. If you are going that way, I suggest that you discuss it case by case (e.g. maybe you first open a thread there about the "expressed skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines" wording or about the contested final paragraph of the lead, see the first edit additing it here) rather than the whole article, though you are free to tell you think the whole article violates WP:NPOV and needs to be rewritten. I think the best way is to go case by case and each issue you think violates NPOV. Davide King (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what the purpose of WP:DRN is, if they are not providing comments. I thought this was the place to go to discuss disputes? What am i missing? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I read the closing comment... It's honestly confusing to navigate all these noticeboards. To me it does not seem like we are reaching any consensus on core topics, and we can continue to revert each others edits and get banned for edit waring. How is that getting us anywhere? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI, added here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Javier_Milei Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we need this?

The "Argentine politics" section has this exchange: "In the campaign prior to the 2021 primary elections, Milei was designated as a public employee in the 1990s by the Frente de Todos candidate Leandro Santoro, whom Milei had criticized as "a state parasite", saying: "I understand that you are 45 years old and you have been involved in politics since you were 14. Have you ever worked in the private sector in your life?" Santoro affirmed that Milei "was an employee of the National Congress in 1994 and reported for the former genocidal general Antonio Domingo Bussi, who was a national deputy." In response, Milei acknowledged having worked for Bussi through his Twitter account."

Do we really need this in the article? It's just a basest exchange of personal attacks between Milei and Santoro. Milei attacks Santoro with a Courtier's reply argument (Santoro never worked outside of the state, therefore his opinions about the private sector of the economy are automatically invalid), and Santoro replies with a Guilt by association argument (Milei once worked for Bussi, Bussi is despicable, therefore Milei is despicable as well).

It does not illustrate any actual political position, the purpose of the section, nor any actual wrongdoing from Milei. Note that when we say that he worked for Bussi we are not talking about a politician allied with another, but a white-collar worker working for a boss who happened to be Bussi. As you know, such workers only do mundane work and have no saying on whatever their boss does (they may not even report directly to him). In fact, it is unlikely that you are fully aware of who would be the boss and his background when you apply for a job, only things that matter are the place and the working conditions (wages, working hours, etc). Santoro never claimed otherwise, only relied on "Milei worked for Bussi" sounding bad when said out of context. Cambalachero (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems like undue weight, and mostly a defamation attempt. It can be reduced to a short sentence, if not removed. 193.69.198.165 (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, Milei has been involved in a number of controversies and that seemed to be notable enough to warrant a mention; we mention Milei's criticism of Santoro and his response to the claims, so we are hardly engaging in "a defamation attempt" as claimed by the IP above. We are not going to add every controversy of his, of course, but this seemed to be notable enough to mention. It also seems relevant in light of Milei's statements about the military dictatorship and the Dirty War, which at times have been ambiguous. A possible compromise, as the article is growing big, could be the creation of Political positions of Javier Milei, where we could move that there, alongside the rest (including the Villarruel issue cited below) that may be notable enough to mention but perhaps not here, while keeping only the more relevant positions in the main article here. Davide King (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You said twice that this "seems to be notable to be mentioned", but not the reason. It is not a defamation attempt from wikipedia, right, but it is a defamation attempt from both politicians towards the other (or, in less loaded terms, just weak arguments that focus on the other person instead of the other's arguments). As for its notability as a discussion, how long did it last? A couple of days at most? How much substance was there to it, once we remove the background explanations? Just an argument and a reply? And how many people joined them in the discussion? Anyone? No, it seems to be just slow news day stuff.

And as said, this illustrates exactly nothing about Milei's opinion of the Dirty War. Suggesting that working for Bussi in a boss-employee relationship means that he supports or endorses Bussi in any way, only illustrates Santoro's zealotry on his approach to Dirty War stuff or his ignorance of the way labor relations actually work (incidentally, Milei's point all along). This boss-employee relation, I should point again, did not take place during the Dirty War, but 16 years later. Cambalachero (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"Suggesting that working for Bussi in a boss-employee relationship means that he supports or endorses Bussi in any way", where do we say or imply that? We simply report what happened. More than a defamation, they were criticizing each other. "This boss-employee relation, I should point again, did not take place during the Dirty War, but 16 years later." That does not make it no controversial or less relevant at all. Milei himself acknowledged that he "evolved", so that may reveal itself to be relevant to reflect his political changes.

As I will write about Villarruel, "news outlets release short reportings of things that have just happened, that should be understandable on their own, and that are fleeting". And here is the thing: the same happens when the subject of an article is involved in a current event or achives international recognition, and the article grows from a stub to a detailed, long article. With time and better sourcing, as biographies and academic books and articles (e.g. the best sources) become available, they will help us understand what is due and what is not.

Political positions of Javier Milei may soon have to be created (would you support such a thing?) and all this being moot. In general, your argument may apply to many other things because, as I said, as the subject is involved in a current event and achieved international recognication recently, so it is going to suffer on recentism and rely on news sources but it is temporary and a way to build the article, which will undergo many changes. In short, I understand your arguments and do not necessarily disagree but I feel like they could be used for many other things that the article says, so why remove this more than something else? Do you have any other issues to report apart from the Santoro and Villarruel situations? Davide King (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Lets do it. I think this is in line with what most political figures end up with, and there is more than enough content in this article to create a dedicated article on political positions. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. This is trivia and quarreling between Milei and Santoro, which adds more or less nothing to the article. My proposal could be to provide a sentence about it, and a source if people want to read more. Perhaps we should add this to a new section including all the silly accusations against Milei, and rebuttals, like cloning his dogs and being anti immigration. :-D Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Shortening the lead

I see how this may be difficult given the existing debates, but I believe the lead should be shortened. There is some repetition of information (in particular in the last two paragraphs) and some information that seems not relevant enough for the lead (e.g. that he was a goalkeeper). I don't just want to take the axe to it given that this overlaps with the existing debate, but I'd like to see if we can achieve this. I think it is possible to shorten the lead without significantly affecting its substance. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. After reading more of this talk page I am not going to wade through this toxic soup. I am unwatching the article and unsubscribing from the discussion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)