This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Latin America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Manual del perfecto idiota latinoamericano from es.wikipedia.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Manual idiota.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

This edit removed a part that clarified the intended meaning of the word "Liberal", as it uses the book itself as a reference, and that's a primary source. Yes, that's correct, but this is an acceptable use of primary sources: cite in an article about a book the things the book itself says. Cambalachero ( talk) 23:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The reference is the editor's notes in the English translation, and not from the original authors. While I can understand that it is important to distinguish the use of "liberalism" in English from progressism with classical liberalism, calling the book " libertarian" is a stretch, and I don't believe that this is the best way to support the claim. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 16:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply