Talk:Political positions of Javier Milei

NPOV dispute
Hi @Gobonobo, lets discuss the content dispute here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * cc @Cambalachero Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Gobonobo, great if you can elaborate on your disagreements with this article.
 * You mentioned;
 * - Dollarization
 * - COVID-19
 * - Political views about sex education
 * - Cultural Marxism
 * - Climate change
 * - "Far-right" label
 * Can you propose some content for these topics? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piertosiri please provide any input here Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because no one replied yet, it does not mean you have consensus. How are these not political positions/views that warrant to be discussed here? Just because some of them may be controversial, it does not mean they are not relevant to discuss here. Besides, it was @Wow (see edit), not me, who moved some content here. Again, I fail to see how these, particular climate change, vaccination, etc. are not political views/position that are not to be discussed in an article wholly dedicated to Milei's political views/positions. Davide King (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, political positions means positions "relating to the government or public affairs of a country." I don't see anything relevant in this context, but I agree this needs to be included somewhere, and public image seems the most appropriate to me at the moment.
 * Since these are contentious topics, and controversial topics, we should be careful on how to include this, without creating unnecessary polarization and disputes. For clarity, the topics being discussed now are these paragraphs/sections;
 * - Climate change
 * - Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
 * - COVID-19
 * - Sale of children
 * - Race
 * As per your edit here.
 * Climate change is an environmental phenomenon, and COVID-19 is a virus. Whatever his opinion on these topics may be, we should focus on the political positions relevant for these topics within this article, such as his position on vaccination, which is included. Its also preferable for a political positions article to remain concise and specific. The broader opinions and discussions are more suited elsewhere, some of it could be related to his public image/rhetoric, other cases could warrant dedicated articles etc. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of these you listed are generally considered political positions. For example, Political positions of Donald Trump literally includes 3.9Questioning Obama's citizenship (Milei's Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory), 5.2Climate change and pollution (Milei's climate change denial), 7.4.3Vaccines (Milei's skepticism), etc. Since Milei is not yet president, we cannot list those "relating to the government or public affairs of a country", e.g. we cannot say he abolished mandatory vaccination because he is not even in office but why we should not list his views on the issue? I also understand "political positions" to mean views on a given issue, as we do for climate change, vaccination, and those issues you removed. So how is climate change or vaccine policy not related to "the government or public affairs of a country"? I fail to see what exactly they have to do with his public image, these are clearly political views and thus should belong at an article about his political positions. Perhaps the article can be reworded and expanded to describe Milei's position taken in office on a given issue but until that happens we should summarize his position on the given issues. Also that only me responded does not mean there is consensus. Davide King (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump is perhaps the worst example on Wikipedia. Its a textbook example of what not to do, but I'm also staying far away from the toxic soup of US politics.
 * What i mean with "relating to the government or public affairs of a country", is not limited to only policies implemented, but his views and positions on those topics. There could be a dedicated article on policies implemented during his first term as president, but thats for much later.
 * From the sections in question, I cant find political information. Climate change denial is not a political position, e.g. deforestation policies or CO2 taxes are, but there is no mention of that in those paragraphs. We need to differentiate between relevant topics and content just eliciting controversy, without any substance.
 * I believe the view on vaccination is included already, and I don't see any support for him being skeptical of vaccines in general. We could expand to include criticisms of lockdowns and coerced vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic, to further clarify the position, but given the controversies created on this topic, it seems more relevant to link to a paragraph on that in the controversy article.
 * Sale of children and a quote about 'I will not apologize for having a penis' are obviously not political positions, and belong in a different article.
 * Cultural Marxism could be included in the relevant topics it has been used, such as education. A dedicated paragraph about it belongs in controversies. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, things like climate change, which really should not be political becase there is scientific consensus for this, have become political so that "climate change denial is not a political position" is not true. Besides, most articles about Milei cite that as one of his trademark political positions, mostly as a controversial position but a political position nonetheless. This is not limited to Trump either, there are other articles that include climate change views.
 * Same thing for vaccination, which especially with the COVID-19 pandemic, whether we like it or not, has been a political issue and position, and have become routinely listed by reliable sources in articles about the subject to describe their views. If the issue is that the section is too big compared to others and thus may looks like too much weight has been given to it, that is because you were not happy with the previous wording, so it was expanded to fully explain Milei's views, which is fine by me. Also I recall we do not say he is skeptical about all vaccines, just about COVID-19 and the vaccination mandate. We may change the title to make it more clear it is referring to COVID-19 but it belongs here.
 * I think that his "sale of children" position achieved so much attention that it deserves a short sentence summarizing this and then saying he opposed it, perhaps this can be merged with the organ trade, another one that can be considered controversial but a position nonetheless, under the title "Organ and children trade" or "Organ trade and sale of children comments", since both would be a trade. We explain that he clarified his comments about a children trade and that he oppose that, but I think it belongs.
 * I agree about the "I will not apologize for having a penis"not being relevant here (I was not the one who put it here and I also disagree with it being in a section titled "Race", it is much better suited as an example of Milei's personality at the "Public image" article, so I will not restore that unless someone else disagree. I would not have a problem listing Cultural Marxism in the section about education. I simply followed your structure, which mostly divided them by single issues (e.g. abortion, social security, etc.), so I did the same for Cultural Marxism even though I can agree it is related to education. Perhaps it can be put right below that section or merged under "Education and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory"? Davide King (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we should not engage in the debate on climate change for this article. If people wish to engage in a discussion about it, we can provide summaries and commentary about that, but its not up to us to define it as a political position, then we are engaging in the debate. As there are many articles mentioning his opinion on this, it's fine to include it in public image, controversies etc., as thats what those articles are about. Wikipedia should not be further inciting controversies, we should rather just include these debates as notable events, and certainly not hide it, its just not a topic for a political position on its own. First we need to include his political positions on how the government or public affairs should engage in environmental/climate related topics, and we could clarify his views on climate change if relevant for those positions.
 * I agree there are political positions related to Covid-19, but skepticisms of some types of vaccines is not one of them. That a topic has been used politically does not make it a political position, its notable for its inclusion in political topics and situations. These are different things.
 * Same goes for "sale of children", its not a relevant topic for a political position, since no such position or view has been presented. This has only been mentioned as point of inciting controversy. Organ trade was discussed specifically as a political proposal, even though its not currently proposed, so here there is a clear distinction.
 * What i mean with including it in context, is that under an Education header, we could mention him linking it to Cultural Marxism, but the header can not be about cultural marxism, as its not a political position. E.g. "He intends to eliminate the law that makes comprehensive sex education in schools mandatory, which he has linked to brainwashing, and Cultural Marxism and said that students are "hostages of a system of state indoctrination"." Any further information on Cultural Marxism is not really relevant here, that belongs elsewhere, and it would only be inciting controversy instead of providing neutral information. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, just because something is controversial, it does not mean it does not belong to an article. If reliable sources themslves see it as controversial, there is nothing wrong with it. His proposed abolition of the central bank is controversial but is in the article. From the Associated Press (AP), literally the first sentence is: "He believes selling human organs should be legal, climate change is a 'socialist lie,' sex education is a ploy to destroy the family and that the Central Bank should be abolished." We currently include three of those, why are we to exclude his climate change views (doing nothing to mitigate it or even favouring gas is, in fact, a political position) and denial that reliable sources, such as the AP, consider significant enough to list alongside his other trademark positions? Obviously we are not going to agree because we have a different understanding and meaning of what a political position is, so others should weight in. Davide King (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yea, the problem is not about citing controversial positions, which we have done, only about including controversies for no other reason than to incite controversy. AP is free to do that if they wish, and we could e.g. attribute them for it in a relevant article/section.
 * If we have sources on him favoring gas, and being against mitigations, those are great things to include.
 * Let see if anyone else will comment. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You wrote that "the problem is not about citing controversial positions, which we have done, only about including controversies for no other reason than to incite controversy." Indeed, but I do not think it applies to what we are discussing. It just happens to be that a significant number of reliable sources covered those positions, making them due. I do not support to include his positions about climate change, Cultural Marxism, children trade, and vaccines "for no other reason than to incite controversy". I support that we include them because these are positions that have been significantly covered by reliable sources. Then there is our disagrement about "political positions", which you say it means "relating to the government or public affairs of a country". Now we have an Argentine climate diplomate who has the support of Milei saying that, despite his past comments, Argentine will not pull out from the Paris Agreement and will maintain its net zero emissions by 2050 committments, so I hope your objections to have a "Climate change" section will fall.  Same thing about "Vaccinations and COVID-19 pandemic". We mention his criticism of past administrations, so why not mention his criticism of the national government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic? Milei himself said that he ultimately decided to get vaccinated, among other reasons, because he was entering Congress, so I fail to see how "Vaccinations and COVID-19 pandemic" does not relate to "the government or public affairs of a country". In fact, we can merge it into "Health", as it is so short. As for Cultural Marxism, I still think it is due, perhaps not in a separate section but within the context of "Education", as you suggested.  As for the children trade, I fail to see how it is not a political position related to "the government or public affairs of a country". Milei himself put it in this context with his "Perhaps in 200 years" comment, and just because he then clarified he opposed it, it does not mean this article should not have a short sentence about it as it was. We would not remove something just because he then said he opposed it or because during his presidency he did not do something he pledged to.  Unfortunately, over a day has passed it is only just you and I here... Davide King (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps posting an RfC may be needed.
 * There are many sources covering these controversies, yes, but they are not presented as political positions, they are presented to incite controversy. They are due in that context.
 * There is no problem including political positions related to climate, such as supporting the Paris Agreement, if we have sources on Milei supporting that. I'm only saying a section about climate change denial does not belong in a political positions article, it needs to be included in the correct context.
 * The section about COVID-19 was not about criticisms on government lockdowns etc, it was about his private health and life situation, and his choice of medical treatment, which is not appropriate for this article. We need to stay on topic and include the relevant content in their respective articles. We should look at other GAs as reference for what to include.
 * Including sale of children in an article about Milei's political positions would be absurd, its obviously not a political positions, it is a controversy. Neither did he express support for the sale of children "Perhaps in 200 years", thats a misquote. What he said is that it would be a cultural question, not a political question in an anarcho-capitalist society, and the context was a philosophical discussion, not a realistic one. That its being repeated so frequently by reliable sources is however notable, and should be included in the right context. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You say "but they are not presented as political positions, they are presented to incite controversy", yet that looks like your own WP:OR. At this point, this all looks like "I don't like it", sorry. Both climate change denial and Cultural Marxism conspiarcy theory have become political positions, and have been routinely listed alongside other Milei's trademark positions. As for COVID-19, since the section is literally titled "Vaccination", I thought it would make sense to, you know, reflects his personal views about vaccines, and explain why he opposes mandatory vaccination by citing his own example for context. As for the sale of children, that is clearly a political position, just like the organ trade; indeed, the whole controversy is because the sale of children is in itself a controversial position. The reason why it was a controversy it was because he was thought to have expressed support for that position. Indeed, you admit that it is notable and should be included in the right context. What is a better page than covering this in an article about Milei's political positions? What it has to do with his public image, other than being one of his many controversies? The article where we can discuss this and put it in the right context is precisely this. Again I ask you, should we remove the organ trade position? Because that is clearly a position that has been seen as controverisal (remember that AP article I linked you above?)? If the answer is no, then why should we remove his position about the sale of children with all the context you want?  P.S. Political positions of Donald Trump includes Trump's climate change denialism and views, conspiracy theories, and vaccines. That you do not like it is besides the point because this shows that those are considered political positions. Same thing for Bolsonaro: "Bolsonaro rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the Paris Agreement during his campaign." Davide King (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It could also be WP:OR to include it as political positions. Articles on Wikipedia should not engage in these debates, we stick to simple objective "political positions", no less no more. As per "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence." So the articles on Donald Trump and Bolsonaro should also be changed, but I have not participated in editing those.
 * These are much more related to media coverage, and public image, as the topics are routinely used to describe Milei's character. What specific political policies are included in any of these paragraphs? We should not mix political image, rhetoric, criticisms and such in this article, that's relevant for other articles, such as public image.
 * To include such paragraphs will only be attributed to political activism, it does not follow WP:NPOV guidelines, and derails the discourse from the actual content of this article, which are specific political policies, and views on government affairs. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You claim it "could also be WP:OR to include it as political positions", yet the cited examples show otherwise, it looks like you are in the minority because in Wikipedia all of these, particularly climate change, are considered political positions and are routinely included in such articles, especially among those who deny because they go against the scientific consensus on climate change. You said that to "include such paragraphs will only be attributed to political activism" but that can be equally apply to excluding them under the guise of fear of damaging the subject's political image (as one user did about the far-right label), which should not be a concern since we are merely reporting what reliable sources have said. What is more "specific political policies, and views on government affairs" than him literally explaining he voted against a law on the grounds that it expanded the state's role, which he opposes, in a section about us summarizing his views on government spending and the state's role? You mentioned the Paris Agreement, and now we have a source discussing this, yet you removed it!  This is what Reuters, a generally reliable source, had to say: "'Argentina under incoming President Javier Milei will remain part of the Paris Agreement on climate change, the country's new top climate diplomat told Reuters on Sunday, despite the leader's past comments that global warming is a hoax.'" How is this not a political position, with specific political policies and views on government affairs, is beyond me! Davide King (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Davide, the last paragraph proposed from Reuters is not problematic, why didnt you propose it this way to begin with? This discusses the political position on the Paris Agreement primarily, and is only adding a context which is relevant to the position, i.e. past comments on global warming. The previous proposals was all about climate change denial, which is a very different thing. One of the earlier edits related to the Paris agreement contained mostly quotes this person, so it seemed a bit awkward, and weaker since there are no statements coming from Milei. The phrasing from Reuters seems acceptable, and could be placed in a paragraph named Environment.
 * Its the same as i said about Cultural Marxism earlier; "What i mean with including it in context, is that under an Education header, we could mention him linking it to Cultural Marxism, but the header can not be about cultural marxism, as its not a political position."
 * The same applies to climate change denial, we can not include a header about climate change denial. It also does not open for a long-winded elaboration on the opinion of this position, such as a full paragraph explaining climate change denial, or go into details on cultural marxism etc, thats not appropriate here, but could be done in e.g. Public image given we have sources for that. Adding context as Reuters did with a short sentence is not problematic, and not the same thing as was proposed.
 * On this statement "because in Wikipedia all of these, particularly climate change, are considered political positions and are routinely included in such articles, especially among those who deny because they go against the scientific consensus on climate change.", this seems to be contrary to the goal of Wikipedia, and trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's not the stated goal of Wikipedia's to educate the reader, or convince the reader of one thing or another, just collect and present information. If what you say is true, this is potentially a serious problem in the Wikipedia community, which should be addressed. This seems like pursuing truth rather than verifiability. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not propose that earlier only because that article was published on 10 December 2023, a few weeks after we already had this discussion. I just do not understand why you are opposed to having us contextualize and explain Milei's climate change denial statements that the same Reuters article cite. And that is exactly what I did, I put that in "Environment and climate change", not in a "Climate change denial" section, and the Cultural Marxism things in the "Education" header, and yet you still reverted me. What is wrong with us presenting factual examples, including quotes from Milei himself, linking education to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? You complained that the section about the climate does not contain quotes from Milei himself, yet you removed sourced content that report on Milei's quotes and views about climate change, that it is "a socialist lie" and "neo-Marxist". As for the last part, you would be correct if that was not supported by reliable sources but it is. Milei's climate change views have been widely reported, just like Trump (hence it is mentioned there). If reliable sources did not consider this important and did not routinely mention it in articles about him and I did this, you may have had a point and been right. That is not the case though.  In this case, reliable sources consider Milei's climate change views important, so where to put them if not in an article about his political views and positions? I do not understand what his climate change views would have to do with his public image, since you said several times that some of this content is more appropriate there; they are more relevant and appropriate here. Anyway, I appreciate you for responding me, and for the whole discussion, which was interesting despite our disagreements, but I think there is no point further discussing this. I have wrote a threat at the NPOV noticeboard, since this seems to be about NPOV (you think the additions violate it, while I think their removal is the violation). I have not listed every other disagreement, I think it would be better if we go step by step, so I started with climate change. Hopefully, users there will weight in and will help us move forward and end this stalemate. Davide King (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Euthanasia unexplained
The title explains itself. While we're at it, we could sum up his social views as more or less, your body, indeed your choice(with the exception of the unexplained euthanasia, and the caveat that he views abortion as violating the ownership the baby has over itself. 114.122.70.210 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The title explains itself Not really. Do you want the article to explain what euthanasia is? There is a wikilink. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The part on the article does not explain why he thinks euthanasia is wrong, it only goes into his view on abortion and the NAP 114.122.73.4 (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources that explain why he thinks that? If not, there is nothing we can do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)