This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
@ SMcCandlish, Pinochet was an ultraliberal (economically) and is considered far-right. Right-wing libertarianism has been considered part of, or compared to, radical-right populism. Also "far-right libertarian" is a legitimate label used, for example, in these academic press books: Far-Right Vanguard: The Radical Roots of Modern Conservatism, Countering Violent Extremism: Making Gender Matter, and Right-Wing Extremism in Canada, among others. In general, your comment reeks of a lack of understanding of far-right politics. Also other users argued that Milei does not in fact support the legalization of recreational drugs and of sex-work, and reliable sources, including political scientists, do not see him so simplistically as "non-authoritarian". In fact, anarcho-capitalism has been described by scholars as far-right (the same happens for the far-left, which includes anarchists/libertarian socialists and authoritarian communists, so there is nothing unusual in seeing anarcho-capitalism as the more libertarian wing of far-right politics). You write of "the sources in that section lower in the article seem a bit cherry-picked" but have you actually checked "Academic analysis" and "Election news coverage"? Finally, I support simply changing " right-wing populism" to " far-right populism" or even " radical-right populism", not to " far-right". Davide King ( talk) 13:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
As for the claim that "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", I will quote what Chaotic Enby so concisely said: "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." As for the claim that "politics is at least a two-axis model, and I've seen more convincing ones with three axes", indeed that is why there should be no surprise in seeing radical-right-wing libertarianism being considered far-right; it would be in the more libertarian side of a multi-axis political spectrum but far-right nonetheless. And that is why reliable sources use the far-right libertarian label. Davide King ( talk) 14:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@ SMcCandlish It would be a thought-terminating cliché to only label him as far-right, but that is not at all what is proposed, which is to add it to the list of labels currently present. With the context of the other labels like "right-wing libertarian", there wouldn't be any risk of confusing him with Trump or Putin. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 15:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
My very detailed reply to Davide King's OP; collapsing it so it doesn't fill up the screen for everyone.
|
---|
This is going to be very long because of the number of unsupportable assumptions in the OP. "Right-wing libertarianism has been considered part of, or compared to, radical-right populism.": That's kind of a nonsensical statement; these categories are not comparable nor one a subset of the other. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, based on notions of small government, personal responsibility, capitalism, and freedom from authoritarian oppression. Populism is a socio-political rhetorical approach, that uses messages of antiestablishmentarianism, especially to appeal to sentiments of the common people against an "elite" of current or traditional political authority. It is certainly possible for both of these dissimilar things to intersect also with right-wing values, but that does not make them logically confusable with each other much less one a category of the other. It's rather like saying " progressivism has been considered part of or compared to demagoguery", or " anarcho-syndicalism has been considered part of or compared to jingoism". It's confusion of one class of things, political philosophies, with another unrelated class of things, approaches to or argumentation types for appealing to a public base that are used in politics but which span political philosophies. That some journalists with no background in political science confuse these notions is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to do so; we have a duty to do a much better job, and newspapers are not reliable sources for the meanings of such nuanced terms or their actual applicabliity to particular living persons. The fact that the phrase "far-right libertarian" has been attested does not make it actually sensible; similarly, the use of the verging-on-senseless phases like "fascist leftists", "left-wing fascism", etc. by right-wing "news" sources about their ideological enemies doesn't make them encyclopedically meaningful. It's misuse of "fascist" as a vague bogeyman word implying "imposing rules I don't like", in pretty much exactly the same way that the more left-leaning American press misuse "far-right" as a bogeyman term implying "opposed to many positions supported by progressives". In neither of these cases is the usage encyclopedic, because it is ignoring the general-consensus definitions and usage of these terms in high-quality political science sources, and applying them in an argument to emotion manner in very vauge and confused senses, the ones misunderstood and misused by people with no background in the subject. It is not possible for the left or a faction thereof to be "fascist" because it is a right-wing ideology by definition (despite hypothesizing by Mussolini and his ghost-writer Gentile that a centrist form could exist; one has never materialised, just as non-dictatorial communism is theoretical but has never existed). [Aside: The label "fascist left" has occasionally been confusingly used in historical reference to a specific Italian fascist faction; the term was applied because the faction supported national syndicalism as a means of addressing class disparity, but national syndicalism is by definition a right-wing adaptation of certain aspects of left syndicalism, thus "fascist left" even in this disused academic sense is a misnomer, and it is completely unrelated to blowhard "fascist leftists" labeling by modern right-wingers.] Likewise, libertarianism is by definition anti-authoritarian (it's the kingpin of that entire political philosophy), while the far-right are by definition authoritarian. What's happened here is that a lot of sloppy writers use "far-right" to mean "strongly convervative on a social-issues axis, on the opposite side of progressivism", but that is not what the word properly means and not how it is used in high-quality sources. Far-right is the combination of those values with authoritarianism and nationalism (usually with some additional factors like racial and religious supremacy notions). So, "far-right libertarian" is simply an oxymoron, as it resolves to "authoritarian anti-authoritarian". There are certainly socially convervative libertarians (e.g. anti-abortion, anti-immigration, sometimes anti-LGBT+ due to following fringe "science" claims ( overview), often subvertly racist for the same reason (( ex.), and generally opposed to governmental welfare programs, and supportive of deregulation of industry across the board). This is really what people mean when they say "right-wing libertarian", which is a rather confused term, while "far-right libertarian" is just downright self-contradictory. By the same token, there are "left libertarians" or even "libertarian socialists", antiauthoritarians more on-board with progressive stances on many issues, but there is no such thing as a "far-left libertarian" because the far left (communism and its offshoots) are also authoritarian. The "far-" prefix in these terms basically resolves to "authoritarian version of". That said, "far-left" has been seeing meaning drift in punditry, as a pejorative label, just as "far-right" has; for once, our own on article on the subject, at far-left politics, actually captures this usage ambiguity problem right in the lead section. "do not see him so simplistically as 'non-authoritarian'": I said "ostensibly" for a reason. It generally is not possible for someone to actually stick to libertarian principles yet also gain and wield any political power, which by its nature is authoritarian. It is likely that Milei began as a dyed-in-the-wool liberartian then has pragmatically shifted away from it; but asserting this without a great deal of quality sourcing would be WP:OR. That sourcing might exist, and if it does it would demonstrate further that "far-right libertarian" is a silly misnomer, for an additional reason. But having allegedly shifted from anti-authoritarian to centrist on that axis or even a bit authoritarian would not make him "far-right", which is overwhelmingly authoritarian. Side point: the anarch[o]- in anarcho-capitalism does not have the same meaning as in anarchism on the left. The latter is anti-statist but also anti-capitalist and entirely rooted in the Marxist labor theory of value, while the former is by definition pro-capitalism and rejects Marxist theory; the only thing they have in common is anti-statism, and the anarch- in the latter means freedom from the state and from all other systems of authority, especially those that create and enforce class distinctions, while anarcho- in the former means only freedom from regulation by nation-states and replacement of it by industrial self-regulation (private-sector authority which would perpetuate and strengthen class distinction). They're both daft, but for largely unrelated reasons. But more importantly "far-right anarcho-capitalist" is yet another confused misnomer, because far-right by definition is nationalist (promotional and defensive of a nation-state and of the state being cotextensive with the nation) while anarch[o]- anything is by defintion against the state existing at all. "have you actually checked 'Academic analysis' and 'Election news coverage'?": Wikipedia's own article sections are not sources, and probable cherry picking in one is not disproved by probable cherry picking in others. "Finally, I support simply changing ' right-wing populism' to ' far-right populism' or even ' radical-right populism', not to ' far-right'": Well, I don't support any such changes because it's all WP:OR and a seriouis WP:WTW problem; it's a synthesis of sources that largely are not reliable on the nuances of such terminology, to arrive at a simplistic and for many emotive label to stick on the subject, a label that at very best is ambiguous and confusion and at worst outright misleading. (PS: " radical-right" is ambiguous, and primarily refers to two distinct political stances in the US and Europe, nothing to do with Argentina and Milei; to the extent it's sometimes used as a hand-wavy synonym of "far-right", it's worse than the latter, since it has all the conceptual problems of the latter plus the ambiguity problem. Trying to imply a specific meaning with it to our readers is yet more OR.) |
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@ KlayCax, could you please clarify what is "the current American political spectrum into every international issue is obnoxious and misleading"? International sources from Argentina to Spain and other European countries used the "far-right/ultra-right" or "far-right populist" label. So what does that have to do with American politics? Davide King ( talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@
Kcmastrpc, could you please explain which are these op-ed articles used in support of the far-right label? Unless I missed anything, I am pretty sure I used only "Analysis/News" articles, no op-eds. In fact, the reverse is true: op-eds are some that dispute the far-right label but they are
WP:OPINION, while straight news articles are the ones using the far-right label.
Davide King (
talk)
19:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Sergeant Curious, why do you mention "alt-tight", was that just a mistake and you meant to say "far-right"? "Far-right" is the label being discussed, not "alt-right". Also we would not be stating this in wikivoice, just that he has been described as such (by a wide range of reliable sources across the globe), whether we like it or not. Davide King ( talk) 12:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Isaidnoway, could you please tell us how you suggest we write the lead paragraph related to Milei's politics without using any label (that would include right-wing libertarian, right-wing populist, anarcho-capitalist, minarchist, etc.). We also do not dismiss labels just because we think they are contentious. We must follow WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Davide King ( talk) 11:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@ MaximusEditor, as I asked to Sergeant Curious, could you please eleborate on your comment? WP:NPOV does not mean "neutrality" in the way it is commonly understood but it 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". Dismissing the far-right label, which was one of the significant views published by reliable sources on the topic of Milei's politics, is in fact the NPOV violation. I am asking you because " this is not a vote", it should be based on rational arguments and Wikipedia policy and guidlines. Acting as though this is a contentious label, even though it is not seen as such by a significant number of reliable sources to describe Milei, it is not a persuasive argument or one that is based on NPOV or our policies in my view. I can at least respect Cambalachero and SMcCandlish's arguments to not have any label but disagree with them on the significance of the far-right label. With comments like yours, which seem to misinterpret NPOV to mean "neutrality" (e.g. we must not say "far-right" because it is a contentious label or it makes the subject look bad). If such a significant number of international reliable sources used in straight news article's text and used it as fact, it is not contentious and can be listed alongside the other labels. But wanting some labels and not the other is a NPOV violation. If one does not want that we list any label, then they should at least propose a summary text in its place, preferably citing reliable sources. Davide King ( talk) 23:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Sadko, could you please clarify how the proposal is against NPOV? WP:NPOV does not mean not "neutrality" as commonly understood, it 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". Dismissing the far-right label, which was one of the significant views published by reliable sources on the topic of Milei's politics, is in fact the NPOV violation. There are respectful reasons to oppose any label from the lead but opposing only this one on what I think are flawed arguments (such as this misuse of NPOV in my view), that is not one of them. Davide King ( talk) 14:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Referencing Buidhe's search on this same talk page, this is what they found:
"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.
So I did a quick search on Google Scholar, which showed this:
Of course, this may be a bit simplicistic (sources should be checked to ensure that they are generally reliable; in this case, Google Scholar should be better than Google News) but at least it shows that the "far-right" label is one of the significant views, and having one but not another, rather than having neither and use prose, is a violation of NPOV. It also shows that consensus is more complicated than assumed, and it cannot be used to keep two labels but exclude another that received even more coverage. Coverage by itself does not mean much but from a quick glances it shows that the label is discussed and taken seriously; I have found more political scientists supporting it than opposing it. Other users are free to provide equally reliable sources or explain why they should be dismissed. We should try to work together and discuss how to properly word it in the lead, rather than whether it should be. Look at Jair Bolsonaro: "A polarizing and controversial politician, Bolsonaro's views and comments, which have been described as far-right and populist, drew both praise and criticism in Brazil." We could use a similar wording when discussing the use of the "far-right" label in the lead. Davide King ( talk) 19:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Javier Milei: 1,020 hits (far-right represents less than 15%). Also, this is a contentious topic in a BLP and unless we can cite a significant majority of high-quality sources that are uncontroversial, we simply should not include what a bunch of newspapers decide to print to drive engagement in the Wiki lead. I've already cited policy regarding MOS:LABEL, WP:HEADLINES, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:RSOPINION and I'm through engaging in this discussion because I'm sensing WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 14:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
"If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."So why would we put something such as this in the lead? Why is it important to the reader if it's not authorative (and isn't supported by a majority of scholarly sources)? Also,
Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.Political editorials are not well-known for their neutrality, especially given the findings per Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#Articles_related_to_politics.
While in the words of Cristóbal Rovira, a professor of political science at the Catholic University of Chile, "Milei has a libertarian component that makes him a rare creature compared to the ultra-right of Latin America", he is placed within the context of the global far right. He said: "There is a fairly global wave of the extreme right. They start in Western Europe, where the emblematic case of Jean-Marie Le Pen is in France in the 1980s, they expand to Eastern Europe and today we see that they are beginning to gain territory in other places: Trump, Bolsonaro." According to Rovira, "Milei would fit into the prototype of what these ultra-rights are." He said: "At an academic level we define them by two important criteria. First, they are to the right of the mainstream right and profess much more radical ideas. In the case of Argentina, Milei is positioned to the right of Macrismo. Second, they maintain an ambivalent relationship with the democratic system and sometimes profess authoritarian ideas. That differentiates them from the traditional right, which act within the rules of the democratic game." According to Rovira, "Milei's case fits very well into this double classification." [16]
Javier Milei: 1,020 hits (far-right represents less than 15%)", both "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism" represent way less than that, so should we remove them? That is how absurd that argument is. And in fact we do have "a significant majority of high-quality sources" (AFP, Al Jazeera English, Associated Press, BBC, The Guardian, NPR, Reuters, and many other international news organizations that are considered generally reliable, even right-leaning reliable sources like The Daily Teleghraph and The Wall Street Journal used the label in text at least once). Could you please clarify what you mean by "uncontroversial"? It is sufficient that they are considered "generally reliable" at WP:RSP, engaging in WP:OR claiming they do not explain it or complaining about "sloppy writers" reeks of "I don't like it". Davide King ( talk) 14:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher". We do not write: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. It is good practice, however, to include an inline citation to a reliable source to allow the reader to verify any fact that is not widely known."This seems to fit the climate change-related discussion because there are no reliable source disputing that Milei is a climate change denier or that he rejectes the scientific consensus on climate change. With "far-right", this is different and it will be attributed as one of the descriptrots used for Milei.
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.Those who argue that we cannot use the far-right label because it is contentious or because they claim there are not enough reliable sources in suport (there are), they are clearly missing this point. We do not include descriptors that are not as prominent as this one, we include both.
Javier Milei
(without quotation marks) I obtain 1030 results, so on the same ball park as Kcmastrpc. The problem is that:
"Javier Milei"
(with quotation marks), and restricting the search to English I obtain 206 results, including a handful related to his academic works. The query "Javier Milei" "far right"
gives 97 results. That is, around 50% the publication that contain the term "Javier Milei" contain also the term "far right".
Günther Frager (
talk)
14:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The article mentions Milei's mother, Alicia, "whose maiden name is Lucich, is of Croatian descent": this isn't accurate, as there's no such thing as "maiden names" in Argentina, where women don't take their husbands' last names after marriage. Sugar-brick ( talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Has been getting massive coverage in the press and media. 1 The speech itself seems to have gone viral on the internet. I am thinking it may ring the WP:N bell in it's own right. Any other opinions? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Suggesting the placement of Protests against Javier Milei in the article. Simón, el Silbón ( talk) 07:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Javier Milei has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove an extra line under second paragraph in the "First acts" subsection of "Presidency" section 94.43.156.143 ( talk) 15:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I am writing this because I think that the information about the cloned dogs should be revised, the source of this claims is an unauthorised biography titled 'El Loco' writed by periodist Juan Luis González who openly campaigned against Milei and as far as I know it doesn't have any sustain. 190.137.211.228 ( talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It is way too vertically long, not to mention Milei's face is waaaaay to the right, instead of centered. It's simply terrible. I properly cropped the original picture, I think my version is way better.
Look it up on Wikimedia Commons: Mattarella Milei 2024 (cropped).jpg Guyermou ( talk) 16:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
More scrutiny is needed here. The article claims he is the author of "50 academic papers" and this is patently false. The citation refers to his World Economic Forum profile, which is largely written by the persons themselves. It is not credible
Scopus, largely the most reputable scientific aggregation source, only refers to 4 publications. Actually 3, since a document is duplicated. Of these, only one (older, 1999) is actually peer reviewed, and he is not the main author. The others are an invited book chapter, and a 2-page profile on Forbes ( https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7004452442)
ResearchGate, which is not nearly as reputable, still only indexes 7 publications https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Javier-Gerardo-Milei-81529857 131.228.216.132 ( talk) 13:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
There's two different pronunciations in our fist line: /miːˈleɪ/ and /miˈlej/. 82.36.68.79 ( talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The current description is very short, add the facts that he kept the official budget the same despite a decline of official buying power, making it in practice ~80% lower, and that just days before the protests, he increased funding for specific sectors of university management that only made up ~8% of the total costs, changing it to only ~71% lower than before, also the protests started on the 23rd, not the 24th. It may be a few days before this information shows up in reputable English language sources but some of this was in the BBC article cited currently, and just so you can verify what I'm establishing here's a Spanish article with the more information: https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/04/23/fondos-para-universidades-pese-al-aumento-para-gastos-de-funcionamiento-concretado-ayer-el-presupuesto-total-es-un-71-inferior-al-de-2023/ Hexifi ( talk) 22:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
we desperately need a photo of him as general ancap NotQualified ( talk) 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
What did he get his two master's degrees in? 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 20:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
@ SMcCandlish, Pinochet was an ultraliberal (economically) and is considered far-right. Right-wing libertarianism has been considered part of, or compared to, radical-right populism. Also "far-right libertarian" is a legitimate label used, for example, in these academic press books: Far-Right Vanguard: The Radical Roots of Modern Conservatism, Countering Violent Extremism: Making Gender Matter, and Right-Wing Extremism in Canada, among others. In general, your comment reeks of a lack of understanding of far-right politics. Also other users argued that Milei does not in fact support the legalization of recreational drugs and of sex-work, and reliable sources, including political scientists, do not see him so simplistically as "non-authoritarian". In fact, anarcho-capitalism has been described by scholars as far-right (the same happens for the far-left, which includes anarchists/libertarian socialists and authoritarian communists, so there is nothing unusual in seeing anarcho-capitalism as the more libertarian wing of far-right politics). You write of "the sources in that section lower in the article seem a bit cherry-picked" but have you actually checked "Academic analysis" and "Election news coverage"? Finally, I support simply changing " right-wing populism" to " far-right populism" or even " radical-right populism", not to " far-right". Davide King ( talk) 13:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
As for the claim that "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", I will quote what Chaotic Enby so concisely said: "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." As for the claim that "politics is at least a two-axis model, and I've seen more convincing ones with three axes", indeed that is why there should be no surprise in seeing radical-right-wing libertarianism being considered far-right; it would be in the more libertarian side of a multi-axis political spectrum but far-right nonetheless. And that is why reliable sources use the far-right libertarian label. Davide King ( talk) 14:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@ SMcCandlish It would be a thought-terminating cliché to only label him as far-right, but that is not at all what is proposed, which is to add it to the list of labels currently present. With the context of the other labels like "right-wing libertarian", there wouldn't be any risk of confusing him with Trump or Putin. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 15:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
My very detailed reply to Davide King's OP; collapsing it so it doesn't fill up the screen for everyone.
|
---|
This is going to be very long because of the number of unsupportable assumptions in the OP. "Right-wing libertarianism has been considered part of, or compared to, radical-right populism.": That's kind of a nonsensical statement; these categories are not comparable nor one a subset of the other. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, based on notions of small government, personal responsibility, capitalism, and freedom from authoritarian oppression. Populism is a socio-political rhetorical approach, that uses messages of antiestablishmentarianism, especially to appeal to sentiments of the common people against an "elite" of current or traditional political authority. It is certainly possible for both of these dissimilar things to intersect also with right-wing values, but that does not make them logically confusable with each other much less one a category of the other. It's rather like saying " progressivism has been considered part of or compared to demagoguery", or " anarcho-syndicalism has been considered part of or compared to jingoism". It's confusion of one class of things, political philosophies, with another unrelated class of things, approaches to or argumentation types for appealing to a public base that are used in politics but which span political philosophies. That some journalists with no background in political science confuse these notions is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to do so; we have a duty to do a much better job, and newspapers are not reliable sources for the meanings of such nuanced terms or their actual applicabliity to particular living persons. The fact that the phrase "far-right libertarian" has been attested does not make it actually sensible; similarly, the use of the verging-on-senseless phases like "fascist leftists", "left-wing fascism", etc. by right-wing "news" sources about their ideological enemies doesn't make them encyclopedically meaningful. It's misuse of "fascist" as a vague bogeyman word implying "imposing rules I don't like", in pretty much exactly the same way that the more left-leaning American press misuse "far-right" as a bogeyman term implying "opposed to many positions supported by progressives". In neither of these cases is the usage encyclopedic, because it is ignoring the general-consensus definitions and usage of these terms in high-quality political science sources, and applying them in an argument to emotion manner in very vauge and confused senses, the ones misunderstood and misused by people with no background in the subject. It is not possible for the left or a faction thereof to be "fascist" because it is a right-wing ideology by definition (despite hypothesizing by Mussolini and his ghost-writer Gentile that a centrist form could exist; one has never materialised, just as non-dictatorial communism is theoretical but has never existed). [Aside: The label "fascist left" has occasionally been confusingly used in historical reference to a specific Italian fascist faction; the term was applied because the faction supported national syndicalism as a means of addressing class disparity, but national syndicalism is by definition a right-wing adaptation of certain aspects of left syndicalism, thus "fascist left" even in this disused academic sense is a misnomer, and it is completely unrelated to blowhard "fascist leftists" labeling by modern right-wingers.] Likewise, libertarianism is by definition anti-authoritarian (it's the kingpin of that entire political philosophy), while the far-right are by definition authoritarian. What's happened here is that a lot of sloppy writers use "far-right" to mean "strongly convervative on a social-issues axis, on the opposite side of progressivism", but that is not what the word properly means and not how it is used in high-quality sources. Far-right is the combination of those values with authoritarianism and nationalism (usually with some additional factors like racial and religious supremacy notions). So, "far-right libertarian" is simply an oxymoron, as it resolves to "authoritarian anti-authoritarian". There are certainly socially convervative libertarians (e.g. anti-abortion, anti-immigration, sometimes anti-LGBT+ due to following fringe "science" claims ( overview), often subvertly racist for the same reason (( ex.), and generally opposed to governmental welfare programs, and supportive of deregulation of industry across the board). This is really what people mean when they say "right-wing libertarian", which is a rather confused term, while "far-right libertarian" is just downright self-contradictory. By the same token, there are "left libertarians" or even "libertarian socialists", antiauthoritarians more on-board with progressive stances on many issues, but there is no such thing as a "far-left libertarian" because the far left (communism and its offshoots) are also authoritarian. The "far-" prefix in these terms basically resolves to "authoritarian version of". That said, "far-left" has been seeing meaning drift in punditry, as a pejorative label, just as "far-right" has; for once, our own on article on the subject, at far-left politics, actually captures this usage ambiguity problem right in the lead section. "do not see him so simplistically as 'non-authoritarian'": I said "ostensibly" for a reason. It generally is not possible for someone to actually stick to libertarian principles yet also gain and wield any political power, which by its nature is authoritarian. It is likely that Milei began as a dyed-in-the-wool liberartian then has pragmatically shifted away from it; but asserting this without a great deal of quality sourcing would be WP:OR. That sourcing might exist, and if it does it would demonstrate further that "far-right libertarian" is a silly misnomer, for an additional reason. But having allegedly shifted from anti-authoritarian to centrist on that axis or even a bit authoritarian would not make him "far-right", which is overwhelmingly authoritarian. Side point: the anarch[o]- in anarcho-capitalism does not have the same meaning as in anarchism on the left. The latter is anti-statist but also anti-capitalist and entirely rooted in the Marxist labor theory of value, while the former is by definition pro-capitalism and rejects Marxist theory; the only thing they have in common is anti-statism, and the anarch- in the latter means freedom from the state and from all other systems of authority, especially those that create and enforce class distinctions, while anarcho- in the former means only freedom from regulation by nation-states and replacement of it by industrial self-regulation (private-sector authority which would perpetuate and strengthen class distinction). They're both daft, but for largely unrelated reasons. But more importantly "far-right anarcho-capitalist" is yet another confused misnomer, because far-right by definition is nationalist (promotional and defensive of a nation-state and of the state being cotextensive with the nation) while anarch[o]- anything is by defintion against the state existing at all. "have you actually checked 'Academic analysis' and 'Election news coverage'?": Wikipedia's own article sections are not sources, and probable cherry picking in one is not disproved by probable cherry picking in others. "Finally, I support simply changing ' right-wing populism' to ' far-right populism' or even ' radical-right populism', not to ' far-right'": Well, I don't support any such changes because it's all WP:OR and a seriouis WP:WTW problem; it's a synthesis of sources that largely are not reliable on the nuances of such terminology, to arrive at a simplistic and for many emotive label to stick on the subject, a label that at very best is ambiguous and confusion and at worst outright misleading. (PS: " radical-right" is ambiguous, and primarily refers to two distinct political stances in the US and Europe, nothing to do with Argentina and Milei; to the extent it's sometimes used as a hand-wavy synonym of "far-right", it's worse than the latter, since it has all the conceptual problems of the latter plus the ambiguity problem. Trying to imply a specific meaning with it to our readers is yet more OR.) |
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@ KlayCax, could you please clarify what is "the current American political spectrum into every international issue is obnoxious and misleading"? International sources from Argentina to Spain and other European countries used the "far-right/ultra-right" or "far-right populist" label. So what does that have to do with American politics? Davide King ( talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@
Kcmastrpc, could you please explain which are these op-ed articles used in support of the far-right label? Unless I missed anything, I am pretty sure I used only "Analysis/News" articles, no op-eds. In fact, the reverse is true: op-eds are some that dispute the far-right label but they are
WP:OPINION, while straight news articles are the ones using the far-right label.
Davide King (
talk)
19:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Sergeant Curious, why do you mention "alt-tight", was that just a mistake and you meant to say "far-right"? "Far-right" is the label being discussed, not "alt-right". Also we would not be stating this in wikivoice, just that he has been described as such (by a wide range of reliable sources across the globe), whether we like it or not. Davide King ( talk) 12:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Isaidnoway, could you please tell us how you suggest we write the lead paragraph related to Milei's politics without using any label (that would include right-wing libertarian, right-wing populist, anarcho-capitalist, minarchist, etc.). We also do not dismiss labels just because we think they are contentious. We must follow WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Davide King ( talk) 11:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@ MaximusEditor, as I asked to Sergeant Curious, could you please eleborate on your comment? WP:NPOV does not mean "neutrality" in the way it is commonly understood but it 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". Dismissing the far-right label, which was one of the significant views published by reliable sources on the topic of Milei's politics, is in fact the NPOV violation. I am asking you because " this is not a vote", it should be based on rational arguments and Wikipedia policy and guidlines. Acting as though this is a contentious label, even though it is not seen as such by a significant number of reliable sources to describe Milei, it is not a persuasive argument or one that is based on NPOV or our policies in my view. I can at least respect Cambalachero and SMcCandlish's arguments to not have any label but disagree with them on the significance of the far-right label. With comments like yours, which seem to misinterpret NPOV to mean "neutrality" (e.g. we must not say "far-right" because it is a contentious label or it makes the subject look bad). If such a significant number of international reliable sources used in straight news article's text and used it as fact, it is not contentious and can be listed alongside the other labels. But wanting some labels and not the other is a NPOV violation. If one does not want that we list any label, then they should at least propose a summary text in its place, preferably citing reliable sources. Davide King ( talk) 23:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Sadko, could you please clarify how the proposal is against NPOV? WP:NPOV does not mean not "neutrality" as commonly understood, it 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". Dismissing the far-right label, which was one of the significant views published by reliable sources on the topic of Milei's politics, is in fact the NPOV violation. There are respectful reasons to oppose any label from the lead but opposing only this one on what I think are flawed arguments (such as this misuse of NPOV in my view), that is not one of them. Davide King ( talk) 14:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Referencing Buidhe's search on this same talk page, this is what they found:
"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.
So I did a quick search on Google Scholar, which showed this:
Of course, this may be a bit simplicistic (sources should be checked to ensure that they are generally reliable; in this case, Google Scholar should be better than Google News) but at least it shows that the "far-right" label is one of the significant views, and having one but not another, rather than having neither and use prose, is a violation of NPOV. It also shows that consensus is more complicated than assumed, and it cannot be used to keep two labels but exclude another that received even more coverage. Coverage by itself does not mean much but from a quick glances it shows that the label is discussed and taken seriously; I have found more political scientists supporting it than opposing it. Other users are free to provide equally reliable sources or explain why they should be dismissed. We should try to work together and discuss how to properly word it in the lead, rather than whether it should be. Look at Jair Bolsonaro: "A polarizing and controversial politician, Bolsonaro's views and comments, which have been described as far-right and populist, drew both praise and criticism in Brazil." We could use a similar wording when discussing the use of the "far-right" label in the lead. Davide King ( talk) 19:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Javier Milei: 1,020 hits (far-right represents less than 15%). Also, this is a contentious topic in a BLP and unless we can cite a significant majority of high-quality sources that are uncontroversial, we simply should not include what a bunch of newspapers decide to print to drive engagement in the Wiki lead. I've already cited policy regarding MOS:LABEL, WP:HEADLINES, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:RSOPINION and I'm through engaging in this discussion because I'm sensing WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 14:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
"If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."So why would we put something such as this in the lead? Why is it important to the reader if it's not authorative (and isn't supported by a majority of scholarly sources)? Also,
Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.Political editorials are not well-known for their neutrality, especially given the findings per Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#Articles_related_to_politics.
While in the words of Cristóbal Rovira, a professor of political science at the Catholic University of Chile, "Milei has a libertarian component that makes him a rare creature compared to the ultra-right of Latin America", he is placed within the context of the global far right. He said: "There is a fairly global wave of the extreme right. They start in Western Europe, where the emblematic case of Jean-Marie Le Pen is in France in the 1980s, they expand to Eastern Europe and today we see that they are beginning to gain territory in other places: Trump, Bolsonaro." According to Rovira, "Milei would fit into the prototype of what these ultra-rights are." He said: "At an academic level we define them by two important criteria. First, they are to the right of the mainstream right and profess much more radical ideas. In the case of Argentina, Milei is positioned to the right of Macrismo. Second, they maintain an ambivalent relationship with the democratic system and sometimes profess authoritarian ideas. That differentiates them from the traditional right, which act within the rules of the democratic game." According to Rovira, "Milei's case fits very well into this double classification." [16]
Javier Milei: 1,020 hits (far-right represents less than 15%)", both "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism" represent way less than that, so should we remove them? That is how absurd that argument is. And in fact we do have "a significant majority of high-quality sources" (AFP, Al Jazeera English, Associated Press, BBC, The Guardian, NPR, Reuters, and many other international news organizations that are considered generally reliable, even right-leaning reliable sources like The Daily Teleghraph and The Wall Street Journal used the label in text at least once). Could you please clarify what you mean by "uncontroversial"? It is sufficient that they are considered "generally reliable" at WP:RSP, engaging in WP:OR claiming they do not explain it or complaining about "sloppy writers" reeks of "I don't like it". Davide King ( talk) 14:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher". We do not write: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. It is good practice, however, to include an inline citation to a reliable source to allow the reader to verify any fact that is not widely known."This seems to fit the climate change-related discussion because there are no reliable source disputing that Milei is a climate change denier or that he rejectes the scientific consensus on climate change. With "far-right", this is different and it will be attributed as one of the descriptrots used for Milei.
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.Those who argue that we cannot use the far-right label because it is contentious or because they claim there are not enough reliable sources in suport (there are), they are clearly missing this point. We do not include descriptors that are not as prominent as this one, we include both.
Javier Milei
(without quotation marks) I obtain 1030 results, so on the same ball park as Kcmastrpc. The problem is that:
"Javier Milei"
(with quotation marks), and restricting the search to English I obtain 206 results, including a handful related to his academic works. The query "Javier Milei" "far right"
gives 97 results. That is, around 50% the publication that contain the term "Javier Milei" contain also the term "far right".
Günther Frager (
talk)
14:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The article mentions Milei's mother, Alicia, "whose maiden name is Lucich, is of Croatian descent": this isn't accurate, as there's no such thing as "maiden names" in Argentina, where women don't take their husbands' last names after marriage. Sugar-brick ( talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Has been getting massive coverage in the press and media. 1 The speech itself seems to have gone viral on the internet. I am thinking it may ring the WP:N bell in it's own right. Any other opinions? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Suggesting the placement of Protests against Javier Milei in the article. Simón, el Silbón ( talk) 07:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Javier Milei has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove an extra line under second paragraph in the "First acts" subsection of "Presidency" section 94.43.156.143 ( talk) 15:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I am writing this because I think that the information about the cloned dogs should be revised, the source of this claims is an unauthorised biography titled 'El Loco' writed by periodist Juan Luis González who openly campaigned against Milei and as far as I know it doesn't have any sustain. 190.137.211.228 ( talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It is way too vertically long, not to mention Milei's face is waaaaay to the right, instead of centered. It's simply terrible. I properly cropped the original picture, I think my version is way better.
Look it up on Wikimedia Commons: Mattarella Milei 2024 (cropped).jpg Guyermou ( talk) 16:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
More scrutiny is needed here. The article claims he is the author of "50 academic papers" and this is patently false. The citation refers to his World Economic Forum profile, which is largely written by the persons themselves. It is not credible
Scopus, largely the most reputable scientific aggregation source, only refers to 4 publications. Actually 3, since a document is duplicated. Of these, only one (older, 1999) is actually peer reviewed, and he is not the main author. The others are an invited book chapter, and a 2-page profile on Forbes ( https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7004452442)
ResearchGate, which is not nearly as reputable, still only indexes 7 publications https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Javier-Gerardo-Milei-81529857 131.228.216.132 ( talk) 13:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
There's two different pronunciations in our fist line: /miːˈleɪ/ and /miˈlej/. 82.36.68.79 ( talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The current description is very short, add the facts that he kept the official budget the same despite a decline of official buying power, making it in practice ~80% lower, and that just days before the protests, he increased funding for specific sectors of university management that only made up ~8% of the total costs, changing it to only ~71% lower than before, also the protests started on the 23rd, not the 24th. It may be a few days before this information shows up in reputable English language sources but some of this was in the BBC article cited currently, and just so you can verify what I'm establishing here's a Spanish article with the more information: https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/04/23/fondos-para-universidades-pese-al-aumento-para-gastos-de-funcionamiento-concretado-ayer-el-presupuesto-total-es-un-71-inferior-al-de-2023/ Hexifi ( talk) 22:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
we desperately need a photo of him as general ancap NotQualified ( talk) 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
What did he get his two master's degrees in? 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 20:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)