Political views of Javier Milei: Which, if any, of them should be replaced by a redirect to which target?  ~ ToBeFree ( talk ) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Argentina .  ~ ToBeFree ( talk ) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:POVFORK Political positions of Javier Milei should be deleted and link should be redirected to the original article covering that topic: Political views of Javier Milei .  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 16:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I created the "political views" article after extended discussions a few weeks back, and spent considerable time to reorganize and structure the content in order to make the article in a good shape, and facilitate further improvements.  The "political views" article is substantially shorter, and more to the point than this main article.  After it was posted and linked in the main article, one editor created the duplicate "political positions", and copied the content from this article as-is without editing, deleted the content of the "political views" article and redirected it to the newly created "political positions" article.  I propose we discuss further improvements in the "political views" article, where the content is organized in a way that allows for easier improvement.  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 17:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I like the structure of Political views of Javier Milei , but maybe we should move it back to draftspace for now, and turn Political positions of Javier Milei back into a redirect to Javier Milei#Political positions since they're still identical.  Wow ( talk ) 17:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main discussion we had a few weeks ago is that the main article is an unorganized mess.  Without having the structure in place everyone will add content in random sections.  This has been pointed out in the Talk page by many, but it requires considerable work to fix this, so it has not been done yet.  The content in the new article "political views" is primarily the same content as the main article contains, but distilled to contain political views only, and just list things factually.  It does not make sense to create a duplicate of the content in the main article.  Once we have this in place, anyone is welcome to improve the "political views" article further.  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 17:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's delete Political positions of Javier Milei (to make way for page move), then rename Political views of Javier Milei to Political positions of Javier Milei , and then either draftify the renamed page or tag the non-neutral content in the renamed page.  Also, I agree that the main page is a mess; now is a good time to start trimming it.  Wow ( talk ) 20:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disaster is the openly biased and non-neutral article that the user Pedantic Aristotle intends to impose, as the user Gobonobo said.  The 2 articles should be deleted because they are totally unnecessary, the original article, Javier Milei , already addresses his views and political positions in a very complete, extensive and profound way.  Piertosiri ( talk ) 21:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] It is standard practice on Wikipedia to open new articles once the main article grows large, as in this case.  I submitted the article for review, and it was approved - not by me -.  The serious error was done when @ Gobonobo decided to blank the article, create her own version, and redirect the main article to her version.  Thats really bad practice, content discussions should happen on the articles Talk page.  Bypassing the Wikipedia process by simply replacing articles with their own version is not a good way to improve this encyclopedia.  You are welcome to contribute to the article, if there are things you believe are incorrect or biased, feel free to let us know what that is, and we can work on improving it instead of arguing.  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 21:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is good reason to keep the name as "Political views".  Political positions are more suited for political party programs, where you write about their policy implementations.  It would be best to tag or fix non-neutral content, but i still don't know what is being referred to.  Its more or less the same content that exists in the main article?  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 22:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2 articles should be deleted because they are totally unnecessary, repetitive and one of the articles, the one that the user Pedantic Aristotle tries to impose, is openly biased and has no neutrality, as the user Gobonobo points out.  Javier Milei original article already addresses his opinions and political positions in a very extensive, complete and profound way.  Piertosiri ( talk ) 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] If there is any content disagreement, this can be discussed in the article talk page.  This is a starting point for an article, it is not supposed to be a final version.  As I don't know which parts you are believe are biased, it's difficult to comment, except that the content is derived from the main article, and simply lists the factual and sourced information found there.  Feel free to point out any part of this article that is not correctly representing sourced facts.  There are many things that can be improved, but as a start, I did not want to diverge the content too far from the original content in the main article.  For reference, this is the state of the main article when this article was created; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Javier_Milei&oldid=1173745892 Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 18:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "views", delete "positions", and then move from "views" to "positions" (for consistency, we use "positions" for politicians, as in Category:Political positions of politicians , and "views" for people who are not politicians, as in Category:Political views by person , needless to say, Milei is a politician).  The article clearly needs a fork at this point.  Still, a fork created as a standalone article (as "views") is a better starting point than an article that simply copypastes a whole section (as "positions"); not to mention that blanking an article and creating a replacement article in its place is definitely rude and should not be allowed to stand (that's the whole reason we have those 2 articles right now).  And if this article lists so many positions and forgot a pair... just add them , no need for so much drama.  Even a copypaste from main to fork may be acceptable if we move just specific passages, like those of whatever view is currently missing.  Cambalachero ( talk ) 01:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 09:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per Wow's suggestion, but support any outcome that results in a balanced article.  As it stands, the 'political views' spinoff article violates NPOV by glossing over or failing to mention sourced content from the main article.  Several positions that are described in detail in the parent article are conspicuously absent from the 'views' fork, including his rejection of sex education in schools, plans to abolish the Ministry of Women , and support for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory .  All of these are covered in detail in the 'political positions' section of Milei's article, but go totally unmentioned in the fork.  Similarly, climate change is not mentioned even once in the fork, despite the fact that he denies its existence, calling it a socialist lie.  [8] [9] The brief mentions of dollarization and abortion in the case of rape seem to gloss over the subjects and an there is an in-article note about linking to the COVID controversy rather than any elaboration on the topic.  The imbalance also extends to framing and terminology, with lack of context and soft pedalling both being concerns.  There is a stable consensus in the main article to describe Milei as " far-right , ultraconservative , and right-wing libertarian ".  While these terms are present both in the lead and at the beginning of the political views section of the parent article, their use is avoided in the fork.  After the 'views' draft was first rejected at AfC, suggestions were made for improving the balance, but no changes were made.  Since the beginning of September, the 'views' article has gone almost completely unchanged with the exception of an attempt by an IP to mention climate change that was reverted .  We're less than 3 weeks out from a presidential run-off here in Argentina.  If we're going to have a fork, let's be sure that it deals with the topic fairly and proportionately.  gobonobo + c 23:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Gobonobo , the article Political views of Javier Milei , which the user Pedantic Aristotle intends to impose, is openly biased and has absolutely no neutrality.  It does not reflect the original article.  And if there is any of the 2 articles that should remain, it is the article Political positions of Javier Milei because it is the most complete, reliable, recognized and neutral.  However, I still think that an article of this type for this political figure is totally unnecessary, repetitive and that the 2 articles should be deleted.  The original article already addresses in a very complete, extensive and profound way the views and political positions of this Argentine politician.  Piertosiri ( talk ) 11:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] WP:AVOIDYOU Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a discussion at AFC here , and the criteria is quite relaxed: if the topic is notable, the article has a decent size (as in, more than just a small stub) and there are no urgent problems such as copyright violations, then it is approved.  Cambalachero ( talk ) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The content of the article should be discussed in its talk page.  There has been no discussion there even after multiple requests for comments, and we should avoid disruptive editing .  The article is a new article, there is no requirement for it to contain what the main article contains, regardless its based nearly entirely on the main article, but stripped down to contain only factual political views.  Thats a good starting point.  I can't find any parts of the main article that contains what you mention, that would be suitable for a political positions article in its current form, but if you feel something is missing, feel free to propose changes, and make your argument for them.  I would also propose to check guidelines for biographies WP:BLP , I have read them carefully.  This page is however an AfD discussion, and it seems like most wants to delete the POVFORK positions article, and move views to positions.  After that we can continue improving Wikipedia, rather than waste everyones time.  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 21:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "views", delete "positions", and then move from "views" to "positions".  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "views" , delete "positions" , and then move from "views" to "positions" .  The "views" article was initially approved by @ Cambalachero , and then the "positions" article was created afterwards to redirect away from the "views" article, as one editor wanted to create their preferred version instead.  This split has been highly disruptive and counterproductive, and has effectively stalled further improvements for weeks, which was even stated as the motivation behind these actions due to an upcoming election.  The "positions" POVFORK includes a lot of political campaign statements from the opposition, that is unrelated to political views or positions, has in several cases no verifiability, states opinions as facts, omits inline cite, and was added to circumvent the Wikipedia process of discussing content additions, and effectively WP:STONEWALLING .  The main article does not have consensus for its content, there has been discussions of a larger cleanup since August/September, but these improvements were delayed due to the protection that was added to the article.  The creation of this "views" article was discussed by several editors already at that time, which was supposed to be the first step in the clean-up.  It would now be a good time to proceed with improving Wikipedia, rather than continuing to promote and encourage disruptive editing for political gains.  Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 02:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep