Talk:Javier Milei

Abysmal translations

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

The entire article is in horrid shape. The level of English is subpar at best, with some passages being absolutely incomprehensible. It is also wildly incoherent, with some parts reading like a PR release by Milei's staffers only to be immediately followed by a passage that looks more like character assassination than an encyclopedia article. Both things are unacceptable. I do not have the time to copyedit this thoroughly, but given the fact that this individual is leading the polls in Argentina I may drop by in a week or so and attempt to fix the most egregious problems. Ostalgia (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried to do a larger fix to this article a few weeks ago, but there has been significant amount of political activism stopping any attempt of improving this article. The last attempt is here, which ended up in me getting a 24 hour ban;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&oldid=1173676334

Since I'm not "extended confirmed" yet, and the article is protected, I've been unable to continue working on this article since then. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(note that this was just the first step of reworking the article, not a complete fix) Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

w h a r

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

Just keep in mind that far-right is synonymous with the political center these days, so they are basically claiming its a moderate centrist party. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Moderate centrist parties such as the LibDems of the UK, CDU/CSU of Germany or US Democratic Party are roughly center to center-right economically. Anarcho-capitalism is either a solidly right-wing or very right-wing position in relation to those parties, no matter its merits or drawbacks. Zorblin (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Zorblin just pointing out that the policy proposals are more in line with the two US parties than the opposition. There is no anarcho-capitalism in the political program, and not minarchist either. The proposal does not even include cutting publicly funded education or health, just delegating it to the federal provinces. Basically centrist constitutional positions. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

And clicking on "far-right" link in the thirst sentence of the second paragraph gets you to the wiki page illustrated with people marching with swastika. 2601:601:1400:B580:95E3:995C:B2BC:96EE (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is trash for any political sensitive issue. The vast majority of editors are liberals (e.g. college students with a lot of free time) who bring in their bias. Lrzw (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes a deliberate and methodical consensus-based approach to issues. Maybe your views are right, but until there is definitive proof of that being true, wp:NPOV means that we must portray both sides of a debate proportionally. The amount of liberal content on WP is proportional to the amount of authoritative, clearly sourced liberal content in the media.

Also, if you cannot examine factuality beyond bias, perhaps WP is not "trash for any political sensitive issue [sic]". I offer the counter that you may not be able to analyze political issues well enough to gain information from sources you don't like. That is a skill to work on. Zorblin (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The main issue from my perspective is that the guidelines and policies on using sensational and headline news are vague, and is exploited heavily as "reliable sources". It seems like a bad idea and breaks down the trust of Wikipedia. It should rather be included as notable events, e.g. as is done under the "Media reactions" headline. Anyway, mostly off-topic for this discussion - so I'll end it here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is among the most left-authoritarian biased places on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:599:842:83CE:964A:4EA5:385F:7D11 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Milei is NOT right-wing

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

Nothing about this snippet indicates that Milei isn't right-wing. It merely states that he's running against Argentina's left ("Unión por la Patria") and Argentina's right ("Juntos por el Cambio"), which is true.

There are several sources within the article that place Milei squarely in the rightmost side of the spectrum and, barring that, Milei himself has been very outspoken about what his political leaning is. Santumerino (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, the article describes him as 'far-right', and while that's true, he probably isn't on par with, say, the people in the picture in the "Far-right politics" article. By using the terminology in tandem with the picture, you instantly bias any previously uninformed readers. 2601:44:180:98B0:F4:B4B8:F894:798D (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

whoa

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, there is heavy activism against Milei in this article, but they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"Woke"ipedia is a joke. and it does cater to the radical leftists. otherwise they would get their place blown up in a million pieces by the communists who think they are tolerant to everyone but they are just the opposite. just stay away from this site in general. In fact. Block it. and get everyone involved to condemn this sham of a crap site. I dont even care if they get destroyed in a dumpster fire. they need to go. PERIOD! 98.3.86.218 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@98.3.86.218 I think it would be more helpful to have an open discussion rather than censor and/or ignore each other. With that said, the policies and approach of Wikipedia seems not very suited for controversial topics, recentism and political content, e.g headline news is a poor source for an encyclopedia, yet its been used in this article extensively. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

POVFORK of political positions

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

For those wondering what the draft article was, this is what the OP is referring to. Wow (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Wow. There's now a spinoff article located at Political positions of Javier Milei which duplicates the 'political views' and 'political positions' sections from this article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What you did is wrong on many levels. First, AFC is not a FA nomination, not even a GA nomination. It has never been a requirement that the draft article is "complete", only that it can stand in its current form. You had exceeded your reviewer's prerogatives by rejecting the draft merely because a pair of views were not mentioned. If the user had once been blocked was irrelevant, it would only be if he edited or submitted the draft in violation of the block (he did not, he served his block time and he's back a regular accepted editor by now). I let it slide because AFC does not have a system for review disagreement, but now... as you disliked the review of another reviewer, you used Page blanking on the page, and then overwrote it with content copypasted straight from the article. Please restore the page as I had approved it, and then raise any concerns on the talk page so we may talk about them, or start a proper deletion discussion if that's what you want. Remember that once a draft is approved, it is no longer a draft but an article, and must be treated as such. Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cambalachero. I originally rejected the draft for being a POVFORK and a violation of WP:NPOVVIEW. Those concerns were not addressed and the article was resubmitted without any changes, which you then approved an hour later. The draft had an unbalanced POV that diverged markedly from the consensus here. You're welcome to bring this to WP:NPOV/N, but I think the spinoff based on the content from this article is a much more balanced starting point. gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Cambalachero. You, @Gobonobo, have censored an article by redirecting it to your own article. If you disagree with the content, it should be discussed on that articles talk page, not here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

New introduction

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

@Uniru288 lets discuss here. Can you be specific which content you would like to change, keep or remove? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

New early life / career section

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

New political image section

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

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

Crop political positions

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

@Pedantic Aristotle This looks like you're proposing a total rewrite of the article. Instead of sections, is there a draft of the whole thing we can look at?

Also, if you could please use edit summaries for your edits. Your recent changes were removing his party affiliation and deputy status from the lead, and blanking the sourced content describing his political positions. There should be a consensus here before we implemente those changes. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I did it this way because its easier to discuss section by section, instead of a rewrite of the article. Re-added those sentences. The first one was accidental, the second one was removed due to the information being repeated in the following sentences, so its a bit excessive. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Note this is just an initial restructuring. Content changes can be proposed afterwards. Note that the political positions article is assuming a split of the article, as per AfD discussions. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uniru288 lets discuss here. Can you be specific which content you would like to change, keep or remove? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Image Crop

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

• 
• 

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

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

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

Add in leade -

Milei is the first libertarian president-elect in world history

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

References

 Not done References 1, 2 and 4 say nothing of that. Only reference 3 says something that may seem like that, but no: "He will be the first libertarian president in the history of the South American country". Meaning, of Argentina, not world history, not even in South America as a continent. Cambalachero (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

​ More sources . Change to Argentina’s first libertarian president instead of world history?207.96.32.81 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Javier Milei - Father

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

Splitting proposal - Public image

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

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

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

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support – The article is above the size recommendation for a Wikipedia article, and should follow common procedure. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, especially now that he has officially been elected (though not actually sworn in or whatever they call it in Argentia). this will likely grow for years to come. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Ambivalent. Having a separate political positions page is fine (and there already is one), but public image doesn't seem that unwieldy yet. That said, if the section does grow significantly larger, I might change my mind. Joe (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  i am largely in the same camp as you joe. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @JoePhin I kind of agree, but there is quite a lot of content that could be added to Public image that would not be suitable for the main article, so it would never be added to relevance and priority of other content. The main article also needs to be truncated before its expanded further, due to its current size. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above. --Wow (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support for what it's worth, but consensus is not needed to create fork articles when the main one gets too big. Cambalachero (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, but due to some earlier editing mess, this was the least controversial approach. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Pedantic Aristotle I have resubmitted the draft on your behalf but there is a redirect in the way so I had to request deletion. Once the redirect is deleted, I will accept the draft. S0091 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Relationships and partners

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

@Lamise 2023: that sounds notable. Do you have any RS that we could use? Joe (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Added Fátima Flórez to the infobox since she is already mentioned in the personal life section. Wow (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"Sexual preference" and gender identity are not a choice

From the article:

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

There are two issues with this.

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

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

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

In this case, it appears that Milei is referring to the freedom to choose to publicly identify with whatever sex or sexual orientation a person wants. Also, it is acceptable for citations to appear in the body, rather than the lede, as long as the material summarized in the lede is cited in the body. Joe (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Senseless

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

The BBC source appears to reference the Falklands war, not the dispute, though I am reading it as translated by Google. Do you have any RS that go into more detail about his exact position on the issue? Please consider posting them here, if you do. Joe (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Why would libertarianism be mutually exclusive with conservatism? Joe (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Can we fix the "Dogs" section?

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

I second this.

Many of the links which criticise Javier have, as the original source of the information, the same author: Juan Luis González. He is/was openly advocating against Milei (for instance here, in his personal Instagram [1]https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzzDu1oAOgy/?hl=es).

There is no proof that the eccentricities stated in this section are true or false, or may be even be takenout of the original context. 77.230.99.200 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, his family is NOT of Italian origin. His father Norberto is Italian, mother is Croatian Alicia Lucich (Lučić Croatian) 95.168.116.32 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased in many sections

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

Far-Right Designation

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

@Appliedintensity Do you have sources to back up your allegation that he drifts from his party's position? —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Where are the sources supporting the "far right" claim? All I see in the sources is opinions without substantiation. Merely being against abortion is not sufficient to make a person "far right" -- a majority of people are against abortion depending on the circumstances. jej1997 (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Identical Subsections

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

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