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 SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 12:17, 14 December 2023 (→‎Survey: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
Dogs section was fixed but there's still mention to the cloning of dogs wich is not confirmed as far as I know and the source cite the same unofficial biography that said he talks with his dogs. 2800:2144:7000:3A9:2E12:7042:371B:8303 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 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]


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

Remove “ for promoting the option for the poor, a social justice Catholic doctrine of aid to the underprivileged”. Not in source. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Quoted text not found.Leoneix (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

The whole part where it says that Milei talk with his gods is not real. He never said that. It was extracted from a book written by person who never cited the sources. 201.182.80.18 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: "dogs". 201.182.80.18 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Shadow311 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

This paragraph has a typo:

ilei is known for his flamboyant personality, distinctive personal style, and strong media presence.

It's missing the "M" in Milei.

Can't edit due to the lock. CaseyE3100 (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Far-right"

Is there a consensus for this to be in the lead? Wikipedia describes "far-right" as the following: Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.

Sources are already describing him as going in the same direction as Meloni in Italy. Substantially moderating his positions once elected. KlayCax (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single source does not justify the alteration of so much content. Furthermore, speculation that he may moderate his stance upon taking office does not change the fact that reliable sources describe him as "far-right". I will revert your edit changing the lead until a clearer consensus is formed. Loytra (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources have disputed it, however, @Loytra:. The sources are also using it in a different context from the Wikipedia article.
Also see here, here, and many others sources that have stated the same. The claim's massively WP: UNDUE. KlayCax (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Far-right" should NOT be in the lead, though having it when cited lower down in the article would not fail WP:UNDUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either the political positions or public image section would be more appropriate than in the lead section. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should not be in the lead but minarchist should be, when @Buidhe showed that the latter is not even the preferred one in independent reliable sources. We are not stating as fact, we are simply summarizing the most widely used labels used to describe him, and whether we like it or not, "far-right populist" is one of them. Davide King (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few sources that label Milei without giving any context to that label do not make for a lead. WP:HEADLINES and MOS:CONTENTIOUS make it pretty clear that a label such as far-right should be widely used to describe the subject. In most cases, the sources that use this label appear to be doing so to generate controversy and clicks; most of them do not describe how Milei is "far-right." Per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPREMOVE, editors should not restore this label in the lead without consensus. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we do not state it as fact, we say that is how he has been described (e.g. by reliable sources). I have also added other labels widely used by reliable sources but denying that "far-right populist/libertarian" (it redirects to Right-wing populism, not to Far-right politics, so you guys cannot complain about what the lead of "Far-right politics" says) is not a significant label used to describe him violates WP:NPOV. You write of multiple sources that "have disputed it" but only link to one (The Wall Street Journal), which I am not able to read and verify what it says (does it explicitly say what you support, or simply does not use the "far-right" label, in which case it does not undermine the significant number of reliable sources who do).
You cite WP:HEADLINE and MOS:CONTENTIOUS but the "far-right" is used as fact in the text (it is not limited to the headline), and it cannot be considered contentious when a significant number of reliable sources use it and when we do not state it as fact; as another user nicely put it, reliable sources are not required to explain why they are using the far-right label (I think they actually do, citing his right-wing populist proposals), it is sufficient that they use it, besides if you go to other Milei-related articles, you can see political scientists supporting this. Also see WP:CRYSTAL. Loytra is correct that "speculation that he may moderate his stance upon taking office does not change the fact that reliable sources describe him as 'far-right'." As for Meloni, I would look at "Italy's hard-right government is starting to look more radical". It is not as easy as it seems. Davide King (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say sources are "also using it in a different context from the Wikipedia article", I fail to see how that is true. I assume you are saying sources using the far-right label are using it the same way they describe radical-right populism (e.g. the same way scholars refer to right-wing populists as radical right, a subset of far-right politics that does not reject democracy), which incidentelly is what the previous wording supported, not neo-fascism or neo-Nazism (extreme right). But we do not have a "Radical right" (main topic) article, only Radical right (Europe) and Radical right (United States) (Milei is from Argentina), and the radical right remains a subset of far-right politics, so there is no issue. Davide King (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But to play the Devil's advocate, Milei fits at least one box of the definition we use of "Far-right politics", e.g. reactionary (note that we say or rather than and), has been described as ultraconservative (ultraconservatism also fits several far-right politics boxes), and anarcho-capitalism is economically the most right-wing ideology on the political spectrum. He also said that he wants to return Argentina to 1900 (sic), mostly economically but still reactionary. People need to realize that far right is broader than just neo-fascism or neo-Nazism, and includes the radical right (distinguished from the extreme right, e.g. neo-fascism/Nazism), which scholars have used to categorize radical-right populist parties (e.g. those in Europe that we describe as far right, with the explanatory note). Although he has had controversies related to neo-Nazism (e.g. alleged neo-Nazi candidates and the Rodolfo Barra nomination), I do not think he is a neo-Nazi, and neither do reliable sources. But they do use the far-right label, by which they mean to say he is a far-right populist (as the lead says) rather than neo-fascist/Nazi. Davide King (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the long run I would like to see what scholarly sources have to say, rather than news articles. However, if the label should be changed it should be based on a comprehensive analysis about which ideology labels are most common in RS. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously agree. This are what some political scientists have told reliable news sources. Davide King (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Others sources dispute this, however. It's not an instance of WP: CRYSTAL if dozens of reliable sources similarly and presently dispute the notion that he's far-right.
Readers already know about his anarcho-capitalist beliefs. Do we have to put a "label" on it? I can't see how this improves the state of the article. KlayCax (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in the lead section where it is WP:UNDUE. Not disputing that this could appear, once, in the public image or political positions component with sources and attributions. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really struggling to see - even if editors consider "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism" far-right - how it is easier for readers if we replace it with the latter.
What's exactly the argument for inclusion? No one here has provided one. KlayCax (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? It is literally WP:DUE due to being used by a significant number of reliable sources (even the conservative Daily Telegraph used it!). Since we are not stating it as fact, that other source dispute it (do they actually say that or do they express their opinion Milei will govern more moderately) is irrelevant, since the wording simply reports how he has been described, among other labels, and is not stated as fact, in which case it would be contentious.
Davide King (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just provide his beliefs? Generally, we refrain from putting politicians on an arbitrary political spectrum.
What information is denoted with "far-right" that is not with "anarcho-capitalist" or "minarchist"? And multiple sources do dispute the wording.
The reliable sources are also using it in a different way from how Wikipedia defines it. KlayCax (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Why don't we just provide his beliefs? Generally, we refrain from putting politicians on an arbitrary political spectrum."
  • Are you serious? Because Wikipedia is based around INDEPENDENT secondary reliable sources. Why should we only put his self-descriptions and not what reliable sources have actually said. By following your logic, we must not say that Adolf Hitler was a fascist and antisemite, and we must repeat Nazi propaganda or what the party claimed. That is not how Wikipedia works, and that is obviously an exaggerated example, but if we were in the 1930s, your argument would support that we avoid describing Hitler as a fascist antisemite and say that he is just a National Socialist. Do you understand how your argument is flawed?

    "And multiple sources do dispute the wording"
  • You keep saying that but guess what? Multiple sources also do dispute that he is a libertarian, yet you have no problem having that in the lead? Disputing does not mean negation, since we are not stating anything as fact, merely summarizing how he has been described by independent secondary reliable sources.

    "The reliable sources are also using it in a different way from how Wikipedia defines it."
  • But "far-right populist" (as I suggest) links to Right-wing populism, not Far-right politics. And I already explained to you that reliable sources are using "far-right" to mean "radical-right populism". "Radical right" is a subset of far-right politics that does not oppose democracy. It is still far-right, so your claim is WP:OR.
Davide King (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many reliable sources that have described Javier Milei as far-right, see below:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Esterau16 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And other reliable sources consistently dispute the notion. That's the problem. (They're also almost always - if not always - using it in ways that the Wikipedia article doesn't.)
So if readers click "far-right" on his article, they'll see:

Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, refers to a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies

Do you see how that's misleading?
The obsessive need for editors to put every politician upon an arbitrary political spectrum — which is used in widely different ways by even reliable sources — is not what Wikipedia is for. One wonders why we can't just put "anarcho-capitalist" and "minarchist" (terms that have very clear meanings) instead of replacing it with "far right" (a term that is murky, unclear, and is used in widely different ways.)
Multiple editors have already opposed it being added into the lead. I'm not sure what the problem is with the present wording. If anything, it makes his political beliefs far more clear.
Far-right means many things. Anarcho-capitalist and/or minarchist is very clear and concise. I'm struggling to see what the issue is. KlayCax (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me @KlayCax. Sound reasoning and great work following the specific WP policies in guiding this. Especially WP:DUE and others. Also WP:RECENT should play a role here in guiding the writing so that it does not just focus on a flash of specific sources that might use one descriptor that has conflicting reports from what appears to also be the longer term trend with regard to the subject matter. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to establish a longer-term trend (in the past and present, not in a conjectured future), you also have the same burden of providing reliable sources describing it. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't biased against recent information, and if there is indeed a trend, the most accurate and up-to-date descriptions would be ideal. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KlayCax, you are acting as though we are staing as fact that he is far right; we are not. What we are saying is that he has also been described as far-right, in addition to right-wing libertarian, ultraconservative, and ultra-liberal, among others. Removal of far-right populist is tanamount to WP:NPOV violations, in that a significant numbers of reliable sources are dismissed under the guise of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Again, we are not stating any of that as fact, just that he has been described as such. That other sources have used different labels, it does not negate the fact that many reliable sources used the far-right label to refer to his radical right-wing populist views. Davide King (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with far right in the lead is that unless widely used by sources which describe him as such, it just doesn't belong there (per MOS:LABEL). As I've mentioned above, if a news source puts far right in the headline, it might as well be WP:HEADLINE (even if they repeat it in the body, it's pretty obvious that MSM outlets will use such terms to generate clicks without regard to the actual positions entailed in such political alignment). Thus far, I've not been convinced that Wikipedia should apply this label in the lead, however, it seems appropriate to mention that some news outlets have used that term to describe him in the body. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It needs gone but I don't have permissions to revert. Completely agree. This is a massive WP: NPOV violation. Could you revert for me? Thanks.
@KlayCax: is right. Anarcho-capitalist and minarchist actually showcases what he believes in. The alternative just seems like it's pushing an idea in the reader's mind that he's "bad". StardustToStardust (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Javier Milei" "far right" on Google News in the last month = around 100 hits
"Javier Milei" "minarchist" on Google News in the last month = 7 hits
More evidence necessary that this term is actually the preferred one in independent RS. If not, then we are POV pushing by using it in preference to the more commonly used term. (t · c) buidhe 08:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP: DUE means.
Considering that there is a multitude of sources that contradict this notion: then it's still undue. As @Kcmastrpc:, @StardustToStardust:, @Iljhgtn:, and many other editors on here are stated: why are we using a vague and amorphous term like "far-right" when we can give his specific ideology in the lead? This isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a case of: "it's a better description" and not subjective. KlayCax (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again with this nonsense argument. If we were to say as fact that he is a far-right populist politician, then you may have had a point. Since we are merely summarizing how he has been described by reliable sources, that one source uses another label, and another uses yet another, it does not mean one excludes the other. It is indeed violating WP:NPOV by excluding a term that has been widely used by reliable sources, and it is WP:OR to say that it does not fit with what with say at Far-right politics (since my proposed wording would link to Right-wing populism but with far-right added, not the far-right politics article) or that the source does note explain it (I think they actually do).
Davide King (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point you're deep in the realm of conjecture. Saying that news sources labeling him as "far-right" only do it to generate clicks is, without evidence backing it up, a baseless assertion. The same argument could be used to dismiss virtually any source. All news sources do attempt to drive engagement, that doesn't give us an excuse to selectively dismiss what they say. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even clear that sources "dispute" that he is far right if they simply choose to use another label that may also apply. Everyone who is far right is also right wing, by definition. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Thank you. Davide King (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-capitalism also has had various meanings corresponding to its various schools of thoughts. Also, we're not saying in wikivoice that he's either. Only that RS label him as such, which is what we should report.
Also, the version you've reverted to, claiming it was supported by 4+ people here, doesn't only include changes describing how his political ideology has been reported (what we are debating right now) but also other unrelated and arguably biased language/weasel words, like claiming that his views distinguish him in the Argentine political landscape or labeling Argentina's ties with China geopolitical entanglement. Neither of these have been discussed here, and it would be dishonest to claim that support was for all of these changes. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I have fixed these errors but avoided using "far-right populist" out of fear of getting reverted again, with the inclusion of these mistakes. WP:MOSLEAD says the lead must follow the body, and this is what it says: Milei's stances have been described in many different ways.[114] He has been variously described as far right,[115][116][117] far-right populist,[118][119][120] right-wing libertarian,[121][122][123] ultraconservative,[124][125][126] and ultra-liberal.[127][128][129] Having only "right-wing libertarian" and "right-wing populist", and not "far-right populist" or even "ultraconservative", or use "ultra-liberal" in relation to his economic views, violates this and WP:NPOV. Davide King (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, then we should probably just summarize as, "Milei has been described by media outlets as having a wide range of political affiliations." Giving any particular label favor in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what we'd usually do for any other politician. There's no reason to make an exception here. Media outlets describe him in various ways, we should mention them, not "compromise" by not saying anything at all. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For most politicians, there is a preference for very neutral summaries[14][15][16][17] (I can keep going). If we're going to list every political label uttered by RS's in the lead, why even bother having it in the body (or vice versa)? What I'm suggesting here is that we either summarize or we don't, and thus far it seems we're at an impasse with regards to how to best summarize; thus, my suggestion is that we don't and we just leave such matters to historians (when the time comes). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are all parliamentary politicians though. Look at Jair Bolsonaro, a more accurate comparison, for example. Davide King (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing, here, is mentioning the political labels that come up repeatedly in RS (that is, not just a single random opinion). There's a middle ground between "having nothing in the lead" and "having every single thing from the body in the lead", and that's the entire point of summarizing. Of course it's not easy, but leaving it to historians of several decades in the future is not what Wikipedia is supposed to do. There's no "either we summarize or we don't", the lead is supposed to summarize the body. That's the entire reason for it to exist.
We don't just omit entire pieces of information just because it's hard to find a precise wording. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably even worse since it does not explain or summarize anything. Also several of these labels are not necessarily in contradiction. As noted by Buidhe, "It's not even clear that sources 'dispute' that he is far right if they simply choose to use another label that may also apply. Everyone who is far right is also right wing, by definition." Ultraconservative is not necessarily a contradiction with "far-right populist" (many right-wing populists are in fact conservatives, more conservative than the mainstream right-wing party), and neither is "right-wing libertarian", since such libertarians have been described as populists (paleolibertarianism, a label that Milei used to describe himself, is literally the populist right-wing libertarian strategy) and many right-wing populists are economically liberal or neoliberal. Davide King (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding if needed that "liberal" here only refers to economic policies, and should not be confused with social liberalism or American liberalism. Here, being ultraliberal (economically) and ultraconservative are not contradicting labels, and neither is incompatible with being far-right. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Classical liberal is the term that would be most appropriate for Milei if using the term "liberal" and in seeking to avoid confusion between social liberalism and American liberalism, and furthermore, is backed up by numerous sources [2], [3], [4]. Neoliberal probably ought to be avoided since it is a pejorative used only by critics and is never used by someone to self-describe, though of course it could be used, with attribution, as a "how he has been described" component of text in a section in the public image probably more appropriately than political positions. Even Jacobin points this out. [5] Iljhgtn (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once could argue that libertarian, which was taken from the left, is an euphemism or a fancier term for neoliberalism. Indeed, most of the economic policies advocated by right-wing libertarians fit neoliberal thories, and several Austrian School economists that are supported by Milei took part in that project. As for it being a pejorative, that can certainly happen, like with any other term. But I do not think that, applied to Milei, is a pejorative; in fact, one could argue that "ultra-liberal" is more pejorative. Also, as the Jacobin piece you linked, it shows that the pejorative is mainly when used in reference to centre-left politicians as neoliberal. It is not a pejorative when used in reference to the paradigm shift away from Keynesianism and towards liberalization and economic liberalism (the "-neo" part is because there are some differences from the earlier economic liberalism), which was started by Thatcher and Reagan. It is not a pejorative when referring to right-wing politicians who indeed followed its economic precepts.

Now, in reference to what you wrote above, we could slightly expand the "Political positions" section to explain that his ultraconservatism comes from his social policies (the lead makes him appear less conservative than he actually is) and the ultraliberalism from his economic policies, so that the lead does not simply repeat that but summarizes it. You say that we either summarizes it or not but as long as we have some labels, it is an NPOV violation not include those who are more due according to reliable sources.
Davide King (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything we're talking about here is with attribution, we don't state him being of any specific ideology as an objective fact. I'm not sure "neoliberal" is necessarily a pejorative – you're saying Even Jacobin points this out, but they, despite being a pretty explicitly left-leaning newspaper, actually deconstruct that idea in the exact article you've linked, explaining why the arguments against neoliberalism being a separate thing from classical liberalism don't really hold. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I usually find with the "Far-right" label is, not only it can mean multiple things (from "right-wing but more boisterous than usual" to actual nazism), but most sources that use it do not take the time to discuss it or provide a rationale for the use. It is simply said as a quick adjective to place someone inside an arbitrary political spectrum, and then move to the actual info of the article. Some sources may use it for a well-intentioned desire to provide context, but others do want to harm Milei's reputation by branding him a nazi (and I'm not exagerating). Why such insistence to include this label, with unclear meaning at best and derogative ones at worst, if we have plenty of more precise ones to use? Cambalachero (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have an issue if all this was also applied to more radical left-wing politics for consistency. After all, how it makes sense to put in the same category anarchists/libertarian socialists with Stalinists? Mind you that, unlike the far-right for which we have an academic handbook, it is even more less clear who belongs to which, so all of this equally applies to far-left politics but I have mostly experienced users complaining about right-wing parties or politicians being labelled as far-right. Remember, we are not even stating it as fact, just that he has been described as far-right, which even you acknowledge; you seem to say we should not have it in the lead, even though it has been widely used by reliable sources, simply because "most sources that use it do not take the time to discuss it or provide a rationale for the use". Anyway, where are these reliable sources who "do want to harm Milei's reputation by branding him a nazi"? The source you provided only supports the claim that Maduro called him a neo-Nazi, which is true (he really said that) but obviously Maduro is not a reliable source. Removing "far-right" just because of fear that the subject is being harmed, even though that label is properly attributed, and not used as fact, to a significant number of reliable sources — sorry but that is not really a good argument. I also think it is clear that reliable sources are using far-right in the same context radical-right populist party, such as Alternative for Germany, Vox, et all., are called far-right, even though the correct scholarly definition is that of a radical right that does not oppose democracy. This radical right is still a subset of the far right, so it is not a negation, it just appears most reliable sources prefer using far-left or far-right rather than radical left or far-right. To reiterate, reliable sources clearly use far-right to place Milei within the context of radical right-wing populist politics, certainly not neo-Nazism. Davide King (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. You're not going to find many sources that are considered reliable (by Wiki) using the term far-left for almost anyone, so making that observation, as astute as it is, just doesn't hold any water.
2. I don't find the term to be widely used considering the following; however, it does appear to be in ubiquitous use among sources that:
  • seem to be nothing more than sensational or political hit-WP:RSOPINION pieces.
  • engage in the type of label bingo that conveniently echoes a WP:HEADLINE.
  • and lack any cohesive rationale for how they came to the conclusion that Milei is far-right.
3. No one is arguing that we remove far-right from the article body, just that it doesn't belong in the lead.
Since we still don't have a consensus on whether the sourcing used to label Milei has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead, perhaps it's time to call for an RfC? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think the Associated Press, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Politico, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and similar generally reliable sources do not use the far-left label for anyone? A quick "far-left" research would tell you otherwhise but let's focus on the elephant in the room.
  • Buidhe's research above shows otherwise. None of what you listed is grounded in policy, since the label is used as fact in the article's text, which is not an op-ed, and not just a headline. That it "seem[s] to be nothing more than sensational or political hit-WP:RSOPINION pieces" and "lack any cohesive rationale for how they came to the conclusion that Milei is far-right" looks like your WP:OR. Indeed, the same applies to the far-left, where a party of the left of the centre-left is described as far-left without explaining why, but that is not up to us to interpret and is why we use these labels as attributed descriptions and not as facts. Since none of this is attributed as fact, opposition to it seems more to be an "I don't like it" (see the comment above being worried that it would damage Milei's image but that is not Wikipedia's problem, we are simply reporting what reliable sources have said, so he should complain to them, not to us) than anything.
  • And the reason why is you guys don't like it? There is no valid reason, grounded in policy, that would support such a removal.
I agree with an RfC but I would not limit it to just "far-right". I would make it clear there are alternatives, such as "far-right populist", which was how I edited it (from "right-wing populist" to "far-right populist"), so that the far-right label is used (per reliable sources) but does not link to Far-right politics, since you claim it contradicts it. Davide King (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those labels would be equally problematic in the lead, but I guess the RfC would be where that is determined ultimately. Again, the main aspect of this discussion revolves around the placement of "far-right" in the lead section, versus some mention in the appropriate section, with attribution (most likely public image in my view). We have hashed that out ad nauseum at this point. Also, for what it is worth, I have seen "far-left" disallowed on pages that otherwise might merit the descriptor, but that said, I think your argument of "for consistency" would then be well applied if we were to next look at Jair Bolsonaro then if you really felt that a larger issue of consistency need be applied. I hadn't looked at that page previously, but it was mentioned above. I for one, am satisfied with just looking at this article for now, and ensuring the lead reflect the WP policies invoked which demonstrate why "far-right" is inappropriate within the lead of this article. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, for what it is worth, I have seen 'far-left' disallowed on pages that otherwise might merit the descriptor." Who are those pages? I am curious about whether these are democratic socialists and left-wing social democrats or more radical figures, in which case I may agree it could merit the descriptor. Also I am not sure I understand your comment about Bolsonaro, whose lead includes "A polarizing and controversial politician, Bolsonaro's views and comments, which have been described as far-right and populist". So are we really going to ignore a bunch of reliable sources because we do not like what they say? For the myriad of sources that support the label, see "Academic analysis" and "Election news coverage".
Davide King (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not thoroughly investigated the sources behind the Bolsonaro descriptor. Not doing that right now either. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should be phrasing out "left-right" descriptions on Wikipedia, if anything. I've never seen an article improved by it. Outside of perhaps it being used in discussions of French Revolutionary politics. (Where the left-wing was republicanism and a rejection of the divine right of kings; the right-wing, the inverse.) Today? Labeling parties "far-left" or "center-right" is so meaningless that its useless. KlayCax (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're supposed to follow, not lead. If RS describe politicians using a left-right framework, we should report that they were described as such, even if we don't say it ourselves in wikivoice. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're dismissing sources without any evidence for it. Saying that reputable sources are engag[ing] in label bingo just because they use a word you disagree with is not a valid argument without anything to actually back it up, and is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Also, from the policies you quoted:
  • WP:RSOPINION talks about opinion pieces, and only says we shouldn't quote them as facts but report on what they said. Which is exactly what we're doing, attributing these as how the person is described in media.
  • WP:HEADLINE, as the name says, talks about headlines. Not "article bodies written like headlines" or "words that appear in headlines", no, actual headlines. So it's simply not relevant to the discussion, as these descriptions are not found only in headlines.
ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I would not have an issue if all this was also applied to more radical left-wing politics for consistency." That's neither here nor there. If you have some concern over the categorization of other articles unrelated to this one, start a discussion at their talk pages, or at some wikiproject or project page. Cambalachero (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly relevant, since some of you guys complained that just because Milei is not a neo-fascist or neo-Nazi, it must automatically mean he does not fit far-right politics (yet libertarian socialists and anarchists also would not fit the far-left if one were to include Stalinists); he does, more specifically its subset of the radical-right that is routinely used by scholars to group. According to reliable sources, including several political scientists, Milei fits the far-right label within this radical-right populist context. Davide King (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. That's just a WP:WHATABOUTX argument. Cambalachero (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then answer on the merit, you did not reply to all the other things, namely that reliable sources using the far-right label are clearly using it to mean that Milei is placed within the context of radical right-wing populist politics. The radical-right is still part of the far right. Davide King (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "reliable sources say...", "reliable sources say...". Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Academic consensus. If "reliable sources say" something as a whole, if there is some consensus over something, we need tertiary sources that make that specific claim, and let me quote: "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.". Add to that that, as I said earlier, those sources are not even actually making a claim, but just using a disposable adjective. Good referencing is not only about using sources that are reliable, but also reporting what they say, without making it seem as if they make claims they don't actually do. See WP:SYNTH. Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not saying there's a unanimous consensus for a single label. We're listing, in the lead, the ways he has been described by many reliable sources, without claiming any specific one is a consensus. In this case, simply giving these sources should be enough, as some reliable sources describe him as far-right, in the same way some reliable sources describe him as minarchist/etc.
"Reliable sources say", in this topic, doesn't mean "every single reliable source says that", it just means "there are reliable sources that say that, and we should mention they said it". ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except we are not saying there is academic consensus that he is far right, we are not even stating anything as fact, we are simply reporting that he has been described as such, and since that has been widely reported, from his August 2023 primaries win to his November 2023 and still used today, it is due. So I do not understand your point, except that you are moving the goalposts. Of course, I wold love if this article was full of academic sources rather than news sources but that is the best we have. Also there are political scientists explicitly putting him within the global far-right context, there are some who disagree with his comparisons with Trump but that does not negate the point.
And even those who found ultraliberal a better than fit than far-right still say "he combines that hyperliberal ideology and freedom with elements of the extreme-right." We are not required to have academic consensus for us stating that he has been described (by reliable sources who have consulted several experts) as far right. That is all we are saying.
Davide King (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a larger consensus for the "right wing" such as "right wing libertarian" descriptor than for "far-right", thankfully, that much isn't in dispute. So I see that descriptor as being entirely adequate as far as the sources now stand reflect, especially in regard to the lead section. As written was already a battle to come to the current wording. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even true. Look at this "Libertarianism" section for those who say Milei's social views do not qualify him as libertarian. Should we remove that too since sources disagree about him being a libertarian? That is how absurd the argument against far-right in the lead is. Davide King (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section you cited to is also not a lead section.. that is the crux of the discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And? What does this have to do to with it? Additionally, one could argue that the sources using the "far-right" labels are disputing "libertarian", yet you support having that in the lead but not "far-right populist"? If we have one, we should have the other. Davide King (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with the WP:UNDUE aspect of the discussion. Something might be stated even by a handful of reliable sources, but it is not sufficient to put in the lead since it is clearly highly contentious and therefore would be giving the term massively undue weight in the lead. The other terms have not gotten the same level of debate, though I suppose you are welcome to start such discussions. Wikipedia is a work in progress of course, so this is just the best we can as a community of editors. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Highly contentious would be stating as a fact that "Javier Milei ... is a far-right politician." Merely stating as a summary in the lead that, among the other labels, "far-right" or "far-right populist" were one of the siginficant labels used to describe him is not. Indeed, the WP:NPOV violation would be not having it in the lead, since it has been one of the "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic [in this case, Milei's politics]".
Davide King (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is more than a handful, there is a number of sources describing him as such. If there are also sources explicitly disagreeing, you could mention that it has been debated/contested by others, but it is not WP:UNDUE to mention that he has been described as such by some sources.
The fact that something is asserted by enough RS but debated by others doesn't mean we don't put it in the lead anymore, we mention both. Otherwise, we'd be hiding the whole debate. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at National Rally for an actual example of a group that is described as far-right in a manner that I do not think is in dispute. Also, lead sections do not need to include every aspect of debate about everything included in the body, that would make them all very long or would give undue weight to things that might not be encyclopedic in the consensus formed around them (more the latter in this case). Here is also a helpful article for those that might still be confused about the "far-right" descriptor being used in the case of Milei. For what it is worth, Milei himself would not even self-describe as "right-wing" let alone "far-right", but obviously people do not get to write their own WP articles and dictate how others describe them. That much, is up to us forming WP:Consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny you mentioned National Rally, since Milei was compared to Marine Le Pen. Also, Wikipedia is based around independent secondary reliable sources. We may say that Milei does not consider himself right-wing but that should not stop us from reporting what a significant number of reliable sources said about Milei, namely putting him within the context of the global far-right, which is understood to mean radical-right populists, not neo-Nazis. Davide King (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is exactly how it would be misconstrued, which is part of the danger here, "Neo-Nazism is considered a particular form of far-right politics and right-wing extremism.", at least that is according to the wikipedia article and the given source[6] Though admittedly, that source is hard to actually retrieve/verify. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Third paragraph is missing the M from his last name... "ilei is known for his flamboyant personality" should be "Milei is known for his flamboyant personality"

) Mariance95 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done Typo reported in the request does not exist. The M is there. Shadow311 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Create a separate section for president with main article Presidency of Javier Milei CountO-14 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milei is AGAINST the legalization of drugs and prostitution

In fact, Milei voted against the Cannabis Law in Congress as a national representative. The LLA government program proposes to pursue drug trafficking. Milei has said repeatedly that one of his biggest concerns is that many young Argentines fall into drugs. It is also not true that he is in favor of legalizing prostitution. The LLA program does not talk about prostitution.

I understand that many of these political positions arise from very old interviews, from when Milei was still an anarchist and did not participate in politics. Since his candidacy for Congress and his study of Judaism, Milei has become much more conservative. Maybe you could add this as context.

Thanks ;) 2800:810:549:20:107F:FCDD:9AFA:5898 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have forgotten to use an edit request template which is available on Wikipedia and would be appropriate for this suggestion. Here is a suitable tag: Template:Edit extended-protected, but please do not type in just the template link as I have attached, please follow the instructions on the template webpage for properly inserting the template and suggesting this proposed change. Thank you for your contributions! Please remember to sign up as it brings many benefits such as greater privacy so users don't always see your IP address, other editors can also see the history of edits you have made which is particularly useful to tell whether a user is publishing spam content. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

New reliable source for visits to resting place of rabbi Schneerson:


https://news.yahoo.com/catholic-argentina-incoming-president-rabbi-231230123.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZHJ1ZGdlcmVwb3J0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANZ7qYRByZ4i8AMowZ4YjPRaaRH3TNFdZNmaLYjY9yov4orbr4RZmeFQJdcH3gI7S3GBoMxxhbosFlb2b111HO4bVbiEQJYWcirwjthcLB3oOEDoyKDjslDrRsaIUjtnhGDgDrfZgkBps2MdUXX4bT3eZBF3jQzXb71tdkh185ya 69.243.30.4 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

Delete or Change the link in this line, it currently links to Juan_Bautista_Alberdi who was dead before Milei was born:

Milei also hosted his own radio show, Demoliendo mitos (Demolishing Myths),[20] featuring regular appearances by Alberdian and right-wing libertarian personalities, including the economist and businessman Gustavo Lazzari, the lawyer Pablo Torres Barthe, and the political scientist María Zaldívar.[21][22] HaydenDeBoer (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

“momemts” should be changed to “moments” in photo description 108.172.21.87 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/inside-the-americas/20231116-argentina-presidential-election-far-right-milei-and-peronist-massa-race-neck-and-neck
  2. ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/argentina-sergio-concede-massa-javier-milei_n_655a9daee4b0998d69a0a60c
  3. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/19/world/argentina-vote-milei-massa-nov-19/index.html
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-67470549
  5. ^ https://news.yahoo.com/far-outsider-javier-milei-wins-210852000.html
  6. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/20/far-right-populist-javier-milei-becomes-argentinas-new-president
  7. ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/argentina-elects-a-far-right-chainsaw-wielding-president/
  8. ^ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/voters-in-argentina-elect-far-right-political-outsider-as-president
  9. ^ https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-11-19/argentina-holds-a-runoff-election-that-could-lead-a-trump-admiring-populist-to-the-presidency
  10. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/argentina-elects-right-wing-populist-javier-milei-as-president-13012028
  11. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-15/inflation-at-100-boosts-javier-milei-in-2023-argentina-presidential-election
  12. ^ https://news.miami.edu/stories/2023/11/argentina-elects-far-right-president.html
  13. ^ https://www.npr.org/2023/11/20/1214279729/what-to-know-about-argentinas-eccentric-conservative-new-president-elect
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez
  15. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Tlaib
  16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Stanton
  17. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Swalwell

RfC: Should the lead include "far-right" among the labels used to describe Milei's politics?

Should the lead of Javier Milei include "far-right", as in "far-right populist" (other wording is also welcome), among the labels used to describe Milei's politics? This RfC is not about the first sentence of the lead, it is about the paragraph of the lead that mentions how Milei has been described, that is where this would be added. Davide King (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Yes. It is not contentious when such a big number of reliable sources, including conservative-leaning ones like The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal, have routinely used it to describe Milei's politics from his rise in August 2023 to his presidency win in November 2023. For a list of reliable sources using the label, see "Election news coverage". For the views of political scientists quoted in reliable sources, see "Academic analysis". Not having it in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV, which means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". As someone who has followed the campaign and the election, I can attest that this is indeed one of the significant views. Claims of it being contentious, questioning those reliable sources (for example, "they do not explain why!" They actually do. Or that "it implies he is a Nazi!" No, they clearly place him within the contest of radical-right populism, it is perfectly clear why they call him a far-right populist), or not understanding that we will not be stating anything as fact but just that he as been described as "far-right populist" reek of "I don't like it". Also stating there are sources claiming he will moderate in office reeks of WP:CRYSTAL and still do not negate the fact that reliable sources consistenly or in significant numbers used the far-right label. Davide King (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because "right-wing populist" is sufficient, the sources in that section lower in the article seem a bit cherry-picked, and they're not consistent anyway: "a far-right populist, far-right outsider, far-right libertarian, libertarian populist, ultraright, ultraliberal, far-right or radical right", plus Milei's preferred "anarcho-capitalist" which is also strongly reported in sources. It's not possible to be both far-right and an ultraliberal (even for bordering-on-obsolescent definitions of liberal), and it is arguable that "far-right libertarian" is itself an oxymoron, because far-rightism is not characterized solely by stances on social issues but also by authoritarianism. "Far-right" is similarly in direct logical conflict with "anarcho-" anything. The issue here is that Milei is far-right, least as Americans would see it, on particular issues (abortion and guns and immigration), but progressive-leaning on others (notably legalization of recreational drugs and of sex-work, while at least being middle-of-the-road on LGBT issues), and is at least ostensibly a libertarian, interested in shrinking government and in being non-authoritarian.
    Much of the confusion here and in the press is resulting from trying to put everything on a left–right axis when this is not actually rationally possible, because politics is at least a two-axis model, and I've seen more convincing ones with three axes. Another source of confusion is that the US and arguably the UK don't actually have a left wing at all. Actual communists and hard-left socialists who are communists in all but their chosen label have near-zero influence in these countries, so our idea of "left-wing" is what most of the rest of the world would consider centrist. But Milei's ant-left stances are literally against communists, not against things like the US Democractic Party which is what passes for "left" over here but is not left by any broader definition. That said, Milei does oppose some things supported by the Western so-called-left, like abortion rights. Basically, "it's complicated".
    In short, labeling him "far-right" in the lead would be a severe and misleading over-generalization, and which only agrees with some of the rather selective and simplistic sources. It would be a thought-terminating cliché, and inasmuch as it would steer the average reader into assuming that Milei is roughly in the same camp as Trump and Putin, that would really be a form of WP:OR plus the WP:POV issue of siding with the most extreme labeling of him by those who are socio-politically opposed to him. I find this guy noxious, but I don't want to see him inappropriately tarred and feathered in our material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 12:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relatives

Can you add his sister Karina in the box as relatives like that:

| relatives = Karina Milei (Sister) Jolianomans1505 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

The heading ”Political positions” is currently listed as a part of a series on anarcho-capitalism. Milei’s views have been described a variety of ways and I believe it’s wrong for Wikipedia to make his article a part on series of anarcho-capitalism. In the linked article, he describes himself only “philosophically" as an anarcho-capitalist. Weirdly enough, the word “anarcho-capitalism” isn’t even mentioned anywhere in the entire “Political positions” heading. This I also find problematic. I suggest removing the “part of a series on anarcho-capitalism” template and instead add a little about how he has described himself in relation to anarcho-capitalism. https://www.economist.com/news/2023/09/07/an-interview-with-javier-milei

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Javier_Milei&oldid=1189851438"