Jump to content

Talk:Javier Milei

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 206.174.162.88 (talk) at 02:25, 26 November 2023 (→‎Misuse of the word “doctrine”: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I know that in theory Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, but that's simply not close to what happens in practice. You can interpret the rules in a way to fit your agenda and that's something many editors take advantage of. Lrzw (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The article doesn't describe him as "far-right"; the article says that he has been described as "far-right" by political opponents and media outlets, which are cited elsewhere in the article. There is no violation of neutrality here. WP Ludicer (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Do any of you have specific changes you'd like to see made to the article? If not, then these comments serve no purpose. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Lamise 2023: that sounds notable. Do you have any RS that we could use? Joe (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Fátima Flórez to the infobox since she is already mentioned in the personal life section. Wow (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agreed with Joe, the libertarian position is to accept individual choice, and it applies to public, personal and legal contexts. The choice is related to how you identify yourself, and which sexual preferences you entertain, not which gender or sexual orientation you are born with. How would you rephrase that to remove ambiguity? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I removed the Italian origin sentence since it doesn't seem useful. Wow (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be included in the "public image" article instead. It should be clarified what the source is etc. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems nobody corrected the Dogs section yet. Undergalf (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
BBC, New York Times, CNN, NPR, The Guardian, Politico, Reuters, just to name a few RS, all refer to him as a far right politician/libertarian/candidate. If you want something to be removed or changed the onus is on you to find sources supporting your claim. - Ïvana (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources which describe him as "far-right". Wikipedia points out that this is not a self-description, and attributes the label to those sources. What is your specific objection? WP Ludicer (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of sources don't call him far-right, including AP News, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and Wall Street Journal. MOS:LABEL is pretty clear about how sources should widely use such contentious labels before putting them in a lead. I would argue that sensational political headlines should not be used to support such labels.
Also, WP:ONUS suggests that it's up to editors to gain consensus for inclusion; thus far, I don't see a reason why we should consider it since I see that the articles that do include "far-right" appear to do so without any opinion as to what makes him far right. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, from what I see in the article, the label is attributed to the sources using them, not being applied in Wikipedia's voice (for example, if the lead were to say, "Javier Milei [...] is an Argentine far-right politician"); other descriptions, including his own self-identification as a "liberal libertarian" and "minarchist", are also in the article. And the sources using these labels are reliable and notable, which warrants giving them their due weight. Excluding what they have to say is not neutral. Why they describe him as far right, or whether you personally find their reasoning convincing, is completely irrelevant. It's not on us to decide which label from among all these sources is most apt. WP Ludicer (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is solely against the inclusion of this highly contentious label in the lead, and it is up to editors to decide how the lead is written. I believe it is appropriate to cover how sources characterize his politics in the article, but those characterizations should not necessarily make it to the lead without robust consensus among both sources and editors per MOS:LEAD. Apologies for the generalized nature of my comment. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ïvana (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm a social democrat, but simply listing him as "far-right" would lack a great deal of context (and WP: NPOV concerns), and I don't see why listing him as anarcho-capitalist wouldn't be objective, clear, and suffice.
Ideologically, Milei has been widely described by reliable sources as significantly different from Trump, Le Pen, Salvini, and other right-wing populists, albeit with some admitted similarities. KlayCax (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edit warring

Hi, @Esterau16:. There's not a consensus among editors for the heavily controversial additions you keep trying to add into the lead. (The vast majority of which is redundant or misleading.)

You're presently engaged in an edit war. KlayCax (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milei is of Italian and Croatian descent

His mother's maiden name is Lucich. They are related to TV presenter Rodrigo Lussich, who said their grandparents migrated from Croatia to Argentina https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/rodrigo-lussich-sorprendio-a-todos-y-revelo-el-lazo-familiar-que-lo-une-con-javier-milei-nid20112023/ 190.193.62.232 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency

I have started a draft for the presidency of Javier Milei at Draft:Presidency of Javier Milei (just the basic structure for now). It's WP:TOOSOON for an actual article, but we can start with the things that are happening those days and hopefully it will be ready for December 10. Cambalachero (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalachero: Great! I will definitely be adding sourced material there! --CoryGlee (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it to be added here?

Hi, please I beg for an answer, because my questions are never answered when I ask on talk pages :-( I read that Milei confirmed that he will move Argentina's embassy to Jerusalem: (Source)

The title (in Spanish) says: Milei confirms he wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

Is that to be added here or elsewhere?, please, I just never add anything out of fear of messing up the article, but I would like an opinion. CoryGlee (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first libertarian president in world history.

I do not have permition to edit this article, so ask you for adding this fact and its sources: Javier Milei is first libertarian president in world history.

Sources:

Addition: there was a split in the Libertarian Party of Russia. Today there are two different organizations calling themselves the Libertarian Party of Russia and using the same symbols.

Also, I want to nominate this article for this fact in Did you know ... section/column on main Wikipedia page:
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Javier_Milei
Template_talk:Did_you_know#Javier_Milei
LALKOVED (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 00:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently ineligible. I should note that while he is currently on ITN, it is not as a bold link, so the article was technically eligible to be nominated. Actually meeting the DYK requirements is another story.

(
)
Javier Milei in VIVA22.
Javier Milei in VIVA22.
Addition: there was a split in the Libertarian Party of Russia. Today there are two different organizations calling themselves the Libertarian Party of Russia and using the same symbols.
Group of the regional libertarian movement for libertarians located in the territory corresponding to Peter the Great’s borders of the Ingria Province in 1708:
https://vk.com/ingria_libertarian?w=wall-96624146_1677
https://t.me/Ingria_libertarian/2111
https://www.facebook.com/groups/liberty.spb/posts/2658974337585494 — Russian: "Впервые в истории рыночные реформы будет возглавлять президент-либертарианец, и он же будет формировать правительство. До этого либертарианцы только входили в правительства и не были самостоятельны, проводя реформы";
Russian libertarian channel about politics in Latin America by [Yauheni Juma]:
https://t.me/zhyveliberty/2073 — Russian: "Хавьер Милей - первый президент-либертарианец в мировой истории!"

5x expanded by LALKOVED (talk). Self-nominated at 21:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Javier Milei; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • The article has not been expanded fivefold on that date, by the nominator or anybody else. The nominator has not even edited the article at all. And with its current size, I would say that a fivefold expansion is plainly impossible to achieve. The only way for this article to make it to DYK would be to be promoted as a good article. Cambalachero (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Misuse of the word “doctrine”

When discussing the “option for the poor,” this article misstates that it is a Catholic doctrine. Even their own linked article on the topic refers to it as a principle. The word doctrine has a definite meaning within Catholicism, which the “option for the poor” certainly does not merit. 206.174.162.88 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Javier_Milei&oldid=1186882651"