Talk:Javier Milei/Archive 4

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)

Survey

 * (Note: RFC Submitter) 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 context 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) [EtA] See also this comment. Davide King (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * No, per SMcCandlish, and reasons I explained in earlier threads. In fact, we should try to avoid all labels and use instead the factual info they are meant to convey. Cambalachero (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, per SMcCandlish and I agree with Cambalachero. These labels can become especially confusing in countries outside the USA where the political systems are completely different. Nemov (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to how RS designate him. If sources give him the "far-right" label, among others, we should report on what the sources say, without necessarily presenting it as a fact. Sources indeed use many labels to designate him, and we shouldn't cherry-pick which get to be included based on personal preferences. Either we add all of those present in enough sources (including "far-right"), or we don't add any and we only say that his politics have been variously characterized in media (with potentially a link to the section on his political views). In this way, I'd be okay with Cambalachero's proposal of avoiding any labels, over picking-and-choosing which ones to keep. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 15:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, per SMcCandlish. The urge for editors to insert the current American political spectrum into every international issue is obnoxious and misleading. "Anarcho-capitalist" and "minarchist" is clear. "Far-right" is amorphous. Given the option, why wouldn't we use more specific terminology if it is available to us? What's the difference between "far-right populist" and "right-wing populist"? This is an obvious choice. KlayCax (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, per SMcCandlish, KlayCax, Nemov, etc. There are hundreds of articles and publications asserting Milei's political associations without any consistency; furthermore, there just aren't enough independent articles that aren't WP:RSOPINION pieces to support including "far-right" (anything) anywhere close to the lead, let alone most of the other labels that are in use. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are abundant and numerous reliable sources that have described Javier Milei as an far-right politician.             Omitting information supported by numerous reliable sources, just because it seems controversial to some, is clearly against Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules says that as long as the information is supported by reliable sources, that information can be in the article. There are no valid reasons not to mention the far-right description.
 * Esterau16 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Leaning yes. Many sources have described him as "far-right". The proposal is to show how he is being viewed, not saying as a fact that he is far-right. Senorangel (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. As per Wikipedia's policy, all content must be written from a neutral point of view . Political labels have an editorial bias. Sources that describe his politics as alt-right are not without bias just because they are deemed an acceptable source. To maintain NPOV, it is best to avoid the label as a description. Put forth any pertinent statements made by him and allow the reader to come to that conclusion. Of course, it is within the NPOV standard to use that label when quoting/citing a source that uses that label. But as the voice of Wikipedia, neutrality is key. Sergeant Curious (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning yes. Many sources have described him as "far-right". --Panam2014 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No labels should be used. They are subjective and often misleading. Appears to be a contentious label as well.  Isaidnoway (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes the proposal is how Milei has been described, and there are plenty of references in Argentine and international press with a wide spectrum of political views. The proposal is not about what he is, nor how he perceives himself, nor how Wikipedians perceive him, nor a debate whether the newspapers listed as reliable in WP:RSP are correct on their assertions or not. It is not even a discussion on whether he follows  the populist tactics that Murray Rothbard advocated. What we should be discussing is how to write the sentence  to ensure it is balanced as required by WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Günther Frager (talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 December 2023  (UTC)
 * No- I have to echo the sentiment Sergeant Curious put forth. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. As per Wikipedia's policy; it is not per NPOV. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  14:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No'. Not because of the differences in sources. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the most sources say so as seen in the section. Not on personal feeling one way about what is "neutral", of their own view point of what ideologies are supposed to be, or what is contradictory or not in their own subjective ways or their apparent illusions of cultural relativism.


 * As examples, a person may point at the former South American military dictatorships which were characterized by heavy economic liberalization and this legacy is an integral part of the South America far right. The policies, position and rhetoric of the old inherited and glorified by the new in South America just in the way Milei glorifies el Proceso. And a person may percieve "libertarianism" to be a contradiction with "far right" but others will disagree, such as academics who have studied the relation between what's classified as libertarian movements and far right populism.


 * Instead all that is distracting debate, the text in article must be on the basis of rules that says text must be determined by references and the balance between references is neutrality of the rules. And they support "far right populist". Braxmate (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, not unless we also want to use Wikivoice to describe him as ultraliberal in the lede. It is right and proper that we mention the multitudinous political labels that have been attributed to Milei, as we do later on in the article, but we don't need to list every single label that has ever been used to describe him in the lede. Also, as others have pointed out above, though Milei has been described with many different labels (some mutually exclusive with one another), not all of them are necessarily spot on, given Milei's unique suite of political positions. Joe  (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I've only really seen him described as far-right (or occasionally far-right libertarian) in a diverse range of English media. It's not a violation of NPOV to state otherwise. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No for many reasons, not the least of which in that this would violate WP:DUE by giving a deeply contentious label (according to differing sources) undue weight in the lead. The lead as it is currently written was already tortured in coming to consensus, and inserting a marginalizing term such as "far-right" when inappropriate would violate this policy and would be inserting a strong degree of synthesis. I say the lead is well worded as of this writing now, and should not be further changed without a hefty consensus.Iljhgtn (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No A description of a public figure's politics that comes from any non-academic publication should always be viewed with suspicion. Doubly so if the publication also has different politics. Using a description like that as part of the lead in that person's bio is naive at best. There's a reason the page for Socialism doesn't contain a quote describing it from the Financial Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.155.84 (talk)
 * No, per all the arguments in this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
@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)
 * Isn't the "populist" label even more ambiguous than the far-right one? What does being a populist mean, exactly? Cambalachero (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Radical-right populist is a label routinely used by scholars to describe far-right parties that do not oppose democracy (e.g. Vox, whose leader praised Milei, was at his inauguration, and reliable sources said Milei took his anti-caste rhetoric from them). It is not ambiguous at all. Also Wikipedia is based around independent secondary reliable sources, so they get more weight over primary, auto-referencial ones. And I do not understand why SMcCandlish mentioned Putin and not, for example, Bolsonaro, another far-rightist who Milei has actually been compared to. In fact, he has been widely compared to Trump, although there is some disagreement, which SMcCandlish would know if they had actually read what I linked them to. Davide King (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I do not understand why SMcCandlish mentioned Putin and not, for example, Bolsonaro" – Maybe because I'm not under any obligation to provide a complete list of every single notable person every labeled by someone with such terms? I really have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here, but me not using an example you happen to like is not any kind of failure on my part. "he has been widely compared to Trump, although there is some disagreement" - Yes, exactly. Trying to make our lead the reader into equating Milei's positions and approaches to those of someone like Trump, as if it were a universally agreed fact when in fact it's a contentious label/assertion in the sources themselves, is a form of original research combined with a PoV.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just did not understand why you mentioned Putin since the article does not mention him at all. And this RfC is not about comparisons with Trump, it is about reporting a label that has been widely cited by reliable sources, whatever you think of them or their writers. Thankfully, Wikipedia is based around independent secondary sources, not what random Wikipedia users think of them. Since we are not stating anything as fact, the contentious claim is not a good argument. You should argue that it is undue because it not true that a significant number of reliable sources used that label, or that the sources used in support are not reliable sources or are op-eds, except all of them are news articles and come from reliable ones. Arguing that you think the writer is being sloppy, etc. is not really a good argument and the closure should not take it seriously. Davide King (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This ad hominem tatic is bullshitty and uncivil and needs to stop. Cf. also "your comment reeks of a lack of understanding of far-right politics" and "which SMcCandlish would know if they had actually read what I [like better]" Just make your arguments without casting aspersions at people who disagree with you. I was  for much of my adult life, and trying to insinuate that I'm a cluebag with no familiarity with the subject just because I'm not towing your line is ridiculous and insulting. You have no idea of the background of any other editor here and what their professional-level experience and understanding of a topic are, and trying to read their minds and paint a dismissive portrait of them based on how well they align with your perceptions and preferences is extremely foolhardy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I did not mean to insult you or anything like that, it was not my intention to come across like that. Davide King (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted and accepted. For my part, I'm attempting to just address the arguments you are providing (and largely on a policy basis). For all I know you're poli-sci professor who is a subject-matter expert on Argentine politics; I have no way of knowing. I can just respond to whether the revision proposal and the rationales for it align with what the preponderance of the sources are saying (which seem to favor right-wing and populist at least but not such much far-right, even if the label is attested). And then after that, there's the concern of whether using the far-right term has PoV and clarity/implication issues; just because a term could be used does not mean that it must be, unless it is used nearly universally for the subject, in which case our hand it kind of forced.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, really sorry if I came accross that way. I think that "far-right" not always has POV or clarity/implication issues if a significant number of reliable sources have used it and discussed it, to me that makes it due on par with "right-wing" and "populist", perhaps not exactly on par but enough to be mentioned alongside. For example, what do you think are the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues of my analysis? As I said, I followed the campaign, so I did not feel like I cherry picked, I really tried to put any of the significant labels used to describe his politics. The only cherry-picking I plead guilty of is the exclusive use of reliable sources. :) Of course, they were news sources, and I agree that academic books would be the best sources. Unfortunately, I found what I could. But in these news sources several experts were quoted, and they used the "far-right" label and put in the context I explained you, e.g. radical-right populism, a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. There was some disagreement, for example for his comparisons to Trump, but I do not think that by itself negates the label, since we are not stating it as fact. Davide King (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * More substantively: The mistake here (in "independent secondary reliable sources ... get more weight", a correct principle but being badly misapplied here), is believing that newspapers and other commentary from non-experts are reliable sources for the meanings of political-science terminology, when we all know that these terms are very often misapplied in such material. A reliable source for one thing (e.g. factual reporting of what happened at an event or what someone said) are not magically reliable sources for all things, especially not things that involve a lot of nuance within a professional sphere. I've covered this problem in detail, especially as it pertains to terminological disputes, as it relates to WP:UNDUE deference to tertiary sources, at Tertiary-source fallacy, but the same principles apply also to misuse of weak secondary sources for the same purpose. And newspapers, like monographs (which is what most of the books you've cited are), and op-eds, and organizational position statements, and other materials that are not simply applying WP:AEIS to previously published primary material, are themselves actually primary sources, for the opinion of the writer. These labels are in most cases opinions, and they frequently conflict with each other about Milei. What we should be doing here is having a section on these opinions (from notable and relevant sources), and in the lead concisely summarizing these divergent views, not choosing the view we like better then sticking it onto Milei as if it is an objectively factual label that nearly all the sources agree on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are experts who agree with that label, and we are not saying there is any consensus on the perfect label. We are just listing a range of significant labels used to describe him. It would be perfect if we could reach this same point using proper prose rather than labels. What wording do you suggest to describe his politics? Davide King (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough that "There are experts who agree with that label". As I said to someoen else below, with our material reading "He has been described politically as a right-wing libertarian and right-wing populist, and supports [positions]...", it is not actually "listing a range of signficant labels used to describe him", and that's central to this discussion, I think. The lead is instead concisely summarizing the source-consensus view about Milei, without veering into "outside edge" terms used either by some of his boosters or some of his detractors. It would be possible to write a lead that covered a broader range of this labeling, but that's not what we have now and it's often not advisable. It tends to lead the reader to simply assume that no one really agrees how to describe the subject. But in reality, there is usually a source-consensus view that can be summarized, and we shouldn't deny it to the reader.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can see you point. Ultimately, tt is not a big deal to me, even though I may have given the impression that it was. I can agree with you that the current wording is fine, and I appreciate that. I just think the "far-right" or "far-right populist" can be argued to be due and find its way in a contextualized and concise sentence (rather than just a label; on this I agree with you and it should be a summary-consensus rather than labels listing) like that but I am not going to war over this. Davide King (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Populist seems to have a pretty clear definition in typical usage, actually, just with a divergent and arguably obsolescent definition used historically in American social science, which is clearly not the meaning it has in material like Javier Milei. Contrast this with "far-left", where our lead accurately captures the very messy ambiguity of this term, even within the same area of discourse. "Far-right" has precisely the same problem, but our lead there does address this and needs to be rewritten.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you mention "Populism" when it is "Right-wing populism" that we are discussing? Radical-right populist is a label routinely used by scholars to describe far-right parties or politicians that do not oppose democracy. That is the same context reliable sources use it when referring to Milei as "far-right" or "far-right populist", certainly not neo-Nazism. Unlike the far-left, there is an Hanbook for the Far-Right, and Milei fits the "reactionary" and "radical-right populism" of far-right politics, which is not limited to neo-Nazism or neo-fascism if you think that is the issue. Again, if the issue is us linking to "Far-right politics", "far-right populist" redirects to "Right-wing populism". Several forms of right-wing populism are considered radical-right, which is a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. I am not saying that Milei is a far-right populist. I am saying that is how and why reliable sources described him as such and in which context. Cherry-picking which labels to include (e.g. only those that are auto-referencial like anarcho-capitalism or libertarian, as Milei describes himself) but excluding a label that has been significantly used not only by reliable sources but also by political scientists and academics is beyond me and reeks of "I don't like it". Davide King (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not clear what point you are trying to make, and you just appear to be "trashing", arguing every possible point just to have an argument because you're unhappy someone disagreed with you on this revision proposal. I your position that "populism" was not ill-defined, and now you're railing at me for "failing" to link to Right-wing populism more specifically, when that is  than bare "populism". I'm left with basically a "WTF?" reaction at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you feel like I am "trashing" you, that is clearly not my intention and there may be misunderstanding, so I apologize for that. I just think that "populism" is more ambiguous and "radical-right populism" is a clearer label used by scholars in reference to a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. Davide King (talk) 16:15, 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)
 * But all that leads us to an earlier thread: according to Reliable sources: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Just gathering a number of sources that use a label and taking conclusions from it is WP:SYNTH. Cambalachero (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But we are not stating that there is consensus among scholars, we are not stating anything as fact. We would just state that he has been described as far-right. Since SMcCandlish complained of "sloppy writers", I noted that there are political scientists that support the label, are they all sloppy too? Nowhere does this means there is an academic consensus. It just shows that this is a significant label and that he has been described as such. Nothing more, nothing less. Davide King (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why the policy page says "all or most scientists or scholars". A partial consensus requires explicit referencing as much as a complete consensus. Cambalachero (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of that. I've trying to get this SYNTH point across in other wording both above and below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand what is your argument. We cannot say he has been described as a "far-right populist" because you say there is not academic consensus? Even though we would just be saying he has been described as "far-right populist" by a wide range of international reliable sources? Davide King (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * it's quite simple. Let's say you want to add to a BLP that the subject "has been described as a far-right populist by a wide range of international reliable sources". You'll need to reference that... but not with many references that just say "that man is a far-right populist". You need a source that actually says that the man "has been described as a far-right populist by a wide range of international reliable sources". Cambalachero (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I got it now. But that is not what I support. I support either mentioning "far-right", which in my way has been a significant view by reliable sources, or "far-right populist". Nothing more, nothing less, so in my opinion the argument that we need "a source that actually says that the man 'has been described as a far-right populist by a wide range of international reliable sources'" (indeed, in such case we would need that, and I agree with you) does not apply in this case. Davide King (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that when you say that calling Milei far-right "has been a significant view by reliable sources", who says that it was a significant view? You? The policy about academic consensus (total or partial) is not just for saying that there is such consensus, but also for deciding that there is such a thing and acting in consequence. Unless we have such a reference, all the sources that call Milei far-right do so specifically, and we are not allowed to make any generalized conclusions. Cambalachero (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That would apply to the other label, such as right-wing libertarian, as there have been those questioning his libertarian credentials. Also I think you are too dismissive towards news source when those are the best sources we have now. We can just reword it to say: "Some observers also described him as part of the global populist far-right". There are other ways where we can mention the significance of reliable sources describing his politics as far-right populist. When even The Daily Telegraph ("hard-right") and The Wall Street Journal ("far-right outsider") used the label, it is significant and cannot be dismissed as "left-wing bias". Davide King (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but in the grand scheme, a handful of sources and articles labeling him "far-right" just don't have enough weight for inclusion in the lead. Despite how strongly the editors of those publications feel about him, the editors here have to find consensus that it's "widely used" per MOS:LABEL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You got things reversed. The handful articles are the one describe him as a "minarchist" or "anarcho-capitalist". Majority of reliable sources are using the "far-right" in some form or another. Check the "Sources" discussion. Davide King (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why, yes, "Reliable Sources" is a content guideline and it always applies. Perhaps you are getting confused by discussing with so many people at once, I'm the one who proposed to just do without all labels, not just the far-right one, and focus instead on the things Milei has actually done. Cambalachero (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. There are users who say it is not widely used, and those who do not dispute that but prefer to go another route, like this one, which is certainly interesting and a possibility. Do you feel the current lead already does that job good enough? Do you have any proposed wording for it? I am curious about what you would change. Davide King (talk) 19:33, 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. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 15:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, and if the material were kind of a laundry list of such terms, and what camps they were coming from, I could go along with that. But the material is "He has been described politically as a right-wing libertarian and right-wing populist, and supports [positions]...". The proposal above is to change an occurrence of "right-wing" to "far-right" or otherwise inject the latter into the construction, but this does not seem justifiable with the sources, while "right-wing" and "populist" clearly are. (There may be some doubt about "libertarian", which seems primarily a self-label, and a term used by independent sources earlier on but less so later, the more polical power he has gained, i.e. the more authority.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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 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)


 * I am not going to respond to every point you raised because it would never end, but these should be the main points.
 * Why do you mention Libertarianism when I clearly discussed Right-wing libertarianism? It is the latter that has been compared to right-wing populism. Indeed, paleolibertarianism, of which Milei describes himself as a follower, is a strategy first developed by Rothbard to ally his politics with radical right-wing populism. "Far-right libertarian" is clearly referring to a radical-right version of right-wing-libertarianism, not libvertarianism as a whole (it is not saying that libertarianism is far-right, that would be absurd), which in fact includes left-wing libertarianism, and which was the origin of it.
 * And you keep saying that is an oxymoron, but I presented you three books published by the academic press that take the label seriously and describe it, so much for you claim of "the number of unsupportable assumptions in the OP". So please, avoid expressing your personal views of what is and not an oxymoron, use reliable sources like I did.
 * "Wikipedia's own article sections are not sources", indeed but the sources presented there certainly are. I linked you there simply to avoid having to list every single reference here, too. That you think they are cherry-picked, even though they present a wide range of labels, is your personal opinion. "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'", that looks like your own personal view. Wikipedia is based around independent secondary, not what one user thinks.
 * Davide King (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the third time you've tried this "why aren't you writing the way I want to you write and linking to what I want to link to?" tactic, and it's not useful. There in writing about libertarianism in general and then more specifically about conservative and right-wing leaning libertarians, as I did in some detail, without happening to include a wikilink to the article Right-wing libertarianism. It is not a "failure" on the part of me or the argument I presented, it's simply not spamming wikilinks into every spot one could be spammed. The fact that you just love inject either "radical" or "far-" into every mention of "right-wing" does not make it encyclopedically appropriate for how to write about this or other subjects. No one here needs a run-down on every known variant of libertarianism, and it's entirely unclear why you are trying to provide one, other than perhaps as a hand-wave. As for your sources: please quote them using and defining the term "far-right libertarian" (notice that is a red link). If they do at all, we'll see whether what they say has any support in other material rather than being a disused neologistic coinage with logic problems. And, no, libertarianism (as that term is used today) did not have a left-wing origin. It was rooted firmly in classical liberalism, which is not leftist by any means. As a, it had been used earlier by some communiststs, but with a very different meaning. This is yet another case of terminological ambiguity that you are glossing over. Finally, every discussion like this on talk pages is an expression of views of editors (hopefully informed ones); they're talk pages, not articles. Trying to bible-thump three soures you like as if they magically outweigh everything else, to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you on a variety of principles (like OR policy on  sources are used, V and R on  a source is reliable for, and V and NPOV and OR together on what we can derive from a  of sources on a topic) is not constructive or an aid to consensus formation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I am really sorry about that. I wrote that part before you warned how I was coming off to you. It was not my intention and I apologize, truly. As for libertarian, I am European so I understand it the old-fashioned way still. :) I hope we can discuss the other issues above, while here I will mainly address your comments about my "radical right" usage. You wrote: "The fact that you just love inject either 'radical' or 'far-' into every mention of 'right-wing' does not make it encyclopedically appropriate for how to write about this or other subjects." We are discussing whether "far-right" should be in the lead of this article, that is the only reason why I do that, and I hope you did not take that to mean I personally see Milei only as far right. Also I am using these words because that is what I think reliable sources mean when they say "far-right" or "far-right populist". They obviously do not mean to say Milei is a neo-Nazi by "far-right". Of course, I could be wrong but my understanding reading them and the way the label is used in context, they are using it the same way scholars describe far-right parties (e.g. AfD, Vox) as "radical-right populist", which is a label used to describe such parties (indeed, "radical right" would be the more accurate label to describe but I suppose sources use "far-right" because it is more known and to the point). In this context, "radical-right" is a subset of far-right politics that do not oppose democracy. I hope this cleared things up and I did not come off badly again.  P.S. Honestly, despite everything, this was a really interesting discussion and I would love to have a politics discussion with you in private, I think that would be very interesting and stimulating. :-) Davide King (talk) 17:15, 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)


 * The trend I am seeing in several RfCs is that a "label" is being labeled as being undesirable and contentious. Best practice is just stick to straight reporting and describe him as a member of the Libertarian party. Hope this helps.
 * ✦•┈๑⋅⋯ 𝓜𝒆𝗿𝗿𝛄 𝓒𝒉𝗿𝖏𝙨𝙩𝒎𝝰𝙨 ⋯⋅๑┈•✦  Isaidnoway (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless reliable sources see these labels as contentious, for example attributing them (e.g. "Milei is perceived [by some or similar wording] to be a far-right populist", but they say "Milei, a far-right populist"), these remain personal opinions, which can be respected but are not grounded in our policy and guidelines to me. Describing him as a member of the Libertarian Party is so simplicistly as to mean nothing and clearly not how reliable sources have covered him... Thus failing WP:BALANCE. I appreciate your response though. Davide King (talk) 11:09, 17 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)

Mother's last name
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)

Milei's Speech at Davos
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)


 * I don't think so. At least not yet. What real-world impact has it had? It's not in the same category as "I have a dream...", is it?
 * Marchino61 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You should check Recentism. Yes, the speech is big news right now, but what about a month or even a year in the future? Does something suggest it will have lasting significance? But note that we have the article Political positions of Javier Milei, and some coverage of the speech may have a place in that article. Cambalachero (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let the sources speak for this and include it in the body where appropriate. I think in the "Presidency (2023-Present)" section a new subsection titled "Foreign relations" could be useful where a snippet on the Davos speech is highlighted reflecting the global coverage from reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Protests against Javier Milei
Suggesting the placement of Protests against Javier Milei in the article. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTNEWS and Recentism, additionally, there is an existing article about the protests. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with @Kcmastrpc. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2024
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)


 * ✅ Cambalachero (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

About Milei's cloned dogs
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)


 * ✅, Looked through article and it seems like the information regarding the cloned dogs was revised. Echo thanks.svg, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! MaximusEditor (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The picture is quite terrible
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)


 * Picture right now looks pretty good to me. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah now they changed it to the crop I uploaded, that's why it looks good! I'm glad they did. Guyermou (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Inflated academic career
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)

Pronunciation of Milei
There's two different pronunciations in our fist line: /miːˈleɪ/ and /miˈlej/. 82.36.68.79 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like somebody added an explanatory note for the pronunciation. That seems to have addressed the issue. Is there any other concerns? MaximusEditor (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

More detail about the Recent student protests
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)


 * It has been nearly a month and this part is still very underdeveloped, I suggest someone follows up on this. Hexifi (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

general ancap photo
we desperately need a photo of him as general ancap NotQualified (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In order to be used on a Wikipedia article, images must be uploaded to Wikipedia commons, which requires images to follow standard copyright law, to my knowledge, there is no public domain image of Milei in the Ancap costume, so until someone decides to lift their copyright on one of the images, it cannot be in the article, sadly :( Hexifi (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * im aware and was more making this as a psa begging for someone to either draw it or release copyright NotQualified (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Hexifi (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Master's degrees?
What did he get his two master's degrees in? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim of more than 50 papers is unsupported
The article currently states that 'He had written more than 50 academic papers by 2016'. However, he appears in Scopus (accessed June 14, 2024), as a coauthor of only one article, published in 1998, 'La disputabilidad en la industria telefonica Argentina' Beker, V., Rozenwurcel, G., Cenzon, E., Galperin, C., Milei, J. Desarrollo Economico, 1998, 38(150), pp. 566–592

The evidence cited for his 'more than 50 articles' is a World Economic Forum bio (ref. 16).

I would propose editing the content to read 'It has been reported that he has written more than 50 academic papers (ref16), however, according to the Scopus database he has only coauthored a single academic paper, in 1998 (cite1998article).' Espanocanuck (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)