Talk:Public image of Javier Milei

"Yo soy el rey de un mundo perdido"

For a "Public image of..." article, this article lacks any mention to the most obvious aspect of its topic: Milei's own personal image. The whole rock star image (even using songs from rock bands), the disheveled and untidy hair (which even got him his nickname "El peluca"), the chainsaw, all that stuff. Cambalachero (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We could use articles like Public image of Donald Trump, Public image of Barack Obama, and Historical reputation of Ulysses S. Grant as references. Wow (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Revert; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_image_of_Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1188118425

@Davide King take a look at Javier_Milei_2023_presidential_campaign, i think the contents home should be in context within the presidential campaign article, then we could provide a summary and link to that content within the public image article. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that. As I wrote in the edit summary, I think your original structure was better, e.g. description by the media here at "Public image". Reliable sources widely covered his political positions during his presidential campaign, that is why they are there. In addition, many articles, including Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, have a "Background" or similar "Overview" section, so I do not understand why removing them. We should not have our readers having to click the link, we can provide the necessary context on the same page. Davide King (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm basing the edits on the recommendations in WP:CFORK, where we should avoid redundant/duplicate content, and try to maintain a Single_source_of_truth. It becomes very difficult to edit if we have the same content spread across multiple articles. Instead we should use summaries that provide a concise summary of the content of the article it references.

I think a summary within Public image would be sufficient, we can include the most relevant content, but going in depth on details within the campaign is not going to stay relevant for long. While most of the content can remain in the Javier_Milei_2023_presidential_campaign article forever, since it is very relevant for that article.

When it comes to "Background" and "Overview", these should be sections with background and overview of the article in question, not the larger topic of Javier Milei. At the moment these just seems like duplication of content, that are not relevant for the article. Wiki-linking is how everything is built, duplication is discouraged, if you want to read more about a topic you click the link to see more information in that article. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, @Pedantic Aristotle. Obviously, I agree we should avoid duplicated content, but it is not prohibited when appropriate, for example for context (again, see the many "Background" section we have in articles), and indeed that is what we do when you said that "we should use summaries that provide a concise summary of the content of the article it references" – I think that is what we already do. For example, that is what we do at "Background"/"Overview" at Javier Milei 2023 presidential campaign, and indeed "Overview" is a summary of "Election news coverage" we have here. Also WP:FORK says: "While content forks that are different page types covering the same subject are acceptable, they should not contradict each other—contradictions should be corrected or removed." So it is not surprising that some things may be repeated, as long as they are relevant and are not in contradiction. The article is about Milei, so it should not be suprising if it also summarizes Javier Milei as well. If we do not just link to "Javier Milei", is precisely because we give "a concise summary of the content of the article it references". For example, how is it not relevant his deputy election to an article about his presidential election? Or were you referring to something else?

It seems we disagree more on the former (relevant) rather than the later (contradictions). For example, you may suggest that we swap these but, again, I think you did the correct decision to have "Election news coverage" here, precisely because many of the quotes focus on his public image, e.g. "outsider", "rockstar airs", etc. While "Academic analysis" says that "Milei loves television sets, where he yells, insults and crushes anyone who criticizes him. His curly black hair is the icon of his campaign. On stage, he wears black leather – fire is lit at the climax of his speeches. ... Milei is a vitalist: he's not here 'to guide lambs but to wake up lions,' as he himself says. ... Milei is a war machine against [the political class], a brick thrown against the window of a jewellery store." All this seems more relevant here. The presidential campaign article should focus more on key facts (what he did during his campaign, his political positions) rather than how he has been described and academic analysis, which should be summarized as we already do and is more fit to be described in greater detail here, as you put it. Indeed, you say that "going in depth on details within the campaign is not going to stay relevant for long" but this looks WP:CRYSTAL, by which I mean to say that when, and if, it is not going to be relevant, then I think your proposed content moving could be fine. Until that actually happens, I think we should wait. Davide King (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Its mostly a matter of prioritizing content, getting to the point of the article, and not flood readers with information thats not important for the article. Its too many items to list, but things like trivia information of him being a goalkeeper, or repeating the political positions are not relevant in context for a presidential campaign article, it should contain information about the campaign, and only briefly summarize or reference other articles that are important. It only makes reading/accessing the information of interest more difficult, rather than making it easier. E.g. when reading the lead, I should know all the key topics that will be covered in the following sections about the campaign. I don't need to get a repeat of other articles which I didnt seek out to read, I can visit those articles as needed.

In political image we should include more up to date news articles, and mostly focus on articles written after winning the election, there are many differences compared to the earlier articles during the campaign. The particulars around the campaign are very interesting, and noteworthy, within the context of the campaign. The current structure in Public image is ok for now, but there is a lot of content missing from post election coverage, so I'm only predicting near future changes that are needed, and being one step ahead. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Him being a former goalkeeper is only mentioned once in both articles ("He was a goalkeeper before studying economics at the University of Belgrano, and also formed a cover band in his youth and has taught economics" at the "Public image" article and "former goalkeeper, rockstar, and economist-turned politician" at the "Presidential campaign" article), and what you mean by "repeating the political positions are not relevant in context for a presidential campaign article"? Most 2023 articles about Milei and his campaign routinely listed and cited his political positions, so I do not understand how that is not relevant. I maintain that the "Elections news coverage" section is better for the "Public image" and the "Political position" section better for the "Presidential campaign" article. I have restored and copyedited your expanded lead there, since my main disagreement was with the significant restructuring and content moving. As for expanding this article with more up-to-date articles, that is all fine and great by me. If you already have some of these article post-electoral win, you can link them here so we can discuss them and I can help you adding them to the article. :-) Davide King (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree we can keep "Elections news coverage" in public image for now, until the article grows too large.

Regarding "2023 presidential campaign", my thinking was that it should be about the campaign, and events happening in and during the campaign. If i visited this article specifically, I'm not sure i would be interested in all the other things. If i wanted to read about the political positions, I wouldn't be reading that article. Other things perhaps, like promises made during campaigning, flip-flopping on topics if any etc. would be worthwhile to include. At least those are my impressions, don't want to spend time reading things I did not seek out to read about.

Regarding the up-to-date articles, I was planning to get to that after new year if nobody beat me to it. A bit short on time the next few weeks. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)