Jump to content

Talk:Gabriel Boric

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Education

  1. 1 reference on this article links to

https://www.cnnchile.com/pais/boric-no-me-titule-ni-estoy-pensando-en-titularme-nunca-no-me-quiero-dedicar-a-ser-abogado-nunca_20180713/ But the article don't speak about this person not having finished his career, which is a non-judgment important information. For example, that information would be used when making statics about world presidents education level.

The title says so and the interview itself (Estando en la carrera no me imaginaba ejerciendo en tribunales, litigando, qué paja. De hecho, yo no me titulé ni estoy pensando en titularme, no me quiero dedicar a ser abogado nunca. which translates to While I was studying, I could not imagine practicing in court, litigating, what a bummer. In fact, I did not get the degree nor am I thinking of getting it. I do not want to dedicate myself to being a lawyer ever.) It is something that has appeared several times in his biography, like the time Sebastián Sichel criticized Boric for being payed by the Congress despite not having a degree [1].
However, it is important to understand how Law studying works in Chile. Gabriel Boric finished all his classes in 2009 (becoming egresado, as it is mentioned in his biography at the University of Chile). However, to get a law degree, he has to pass an exam. He failed the first time (something quite common) but then got involved in student politics and was elected deputy, never taking the exam again. --B1mbo (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your comment again and noticed you were referring to the Wikipedia article, I thought of the original CNN article. So I updated the Wikipedia article with the information. --B1mbo (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead photo

A few hours ago, the official portrait of Gabriel Boric was replaced by this picture taken from a video still of its last debate. According to SoWhy, MOS:LEADIMAGE indicates that "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic (...) they should (...) be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see" so Boric should appear wearing glasses.

To be honest, I'm quite surprised with this definition, considering that -like a lot of people- using glasses is not something permanent. Gabriel Boric uses them mostly when reading and not all the time (probably he used them A LOT during the last part of the campaign) but normally it is shown without glasses. You can see it in its Twitter account, own website, Instagram account and so on. He does use them sometimes, sometimes he doesn't, so it shouldn't be something unique that would make the picture not something "our readers will expect to see". It's not like you are using a Salvador Allende image without his iconic glasses or Fidel Castro without a beard.

On the other hand, the official picture has better quality and it is definitely a profile picture, exactly what "our readers will expect to see". I don't see how a bad-quality picture with a strange gesture would be better than the official picture. --B1mbo (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll be WP:BOLD and revert to the previous image. --Bedivere (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, BOLD does not really apply when there is a discussion. As for the picture, I looked at the recent reporting on his win and almost all images show him with glasses. Even his own Twitter photos from the election night show him with glasses [2] [3]. So claiming that they are just reading glasses he usually doesn't wear seems to be incorrect. It's likely that many people will come to this article because they have read about his victory and seen pictures of a guy in glasses in those articles about the victory. And those people will expect the person in the lead of this article to wear glasses too. Which is what I pointed out to the original poster. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He did used glasses while reading his victory speech, obviously he will appear with glasses in a lot of places. He took the glasses off a bit later, as it can be shown here.[4] He didn't use glasses either when visiting the current President which is the main news today [5]. So his glasses are just an accessory. Insisting that he must be wearing glasses in the pic (instead of a better image) is like saying he should be wearing a mask because you can see him in a lot of places using one during the campaign.[6] --B1mbo (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the image that was previously added was entirely unsuitable, I think there is a strong argument to change the image. Looking through images of the fellow this current one seems to be a bit of an odd one out and is not particularly recognisable as him. I'm not quite sure why it looks different, maybe it's just colour grading and the fact he is is doing the weird driver's-licence-photo smile, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if this was a driver's licence photo. If anyone else is in favour of this I would recommend the image used for the "In the news" on the Wiki front page, but there are many suitable images. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the official image of his campaign, taken two months ago. It's the way he has appeared all the time [7] [8][9][10][11]. Why would we use a pic 4 years old in worse quality? --B1mbo (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are completely right, I had not been looking for recent photos and his look has changed a little in the last few years. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

I think Boric's vile response to a gift from the Chilean Jews needs to be noted in the article. 2601:85:8202:F100:B5E8:4E6D:5E05:F34C (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a link to what you are talking about, such as: --> https://www.timesofisrael.com/chiles-new-president-is-bitter-israel-critic-whose-win-has-many-local-jews-worried/ and keep personal comments such as 'vile' out to taken seriously 50.111.6.149 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't take seriously that op-ed disguised as news article. While it's true Boric has been critical of the Israeli government, that does not make him antisemitic. Bedivere (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-semitism may not apply, but his political opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian Arab issue is certainly noteworthy. And that's a news report, not an op-ed. 50.111.6.149 (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an op-ed, I didn't say it was an op-ed. I'm not against adding such comments or even that Boric is an anti-semitic (which he isn't) if you can find some impartial sources. --Bedivere (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because a source comes from Israel or from a Jewish publication, it’s not impartial? these publications are going to be the ones that are posting on issues related to the Jewish people. This is not something that’s going to be covered in The Mirror on the WSJ. Also, speaking on behalf of what is antisemitic, and what isn’t antisemitic is inappropriate. Especially if you’re not the one being targeted. There’s over six valid and well-known and accredited news sources that have covered this issue. NetanelWorthy (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not 'forum' comments ...

I don't mean to violate any TP guideline here, but the ITN photo looks like a bum - Chile is not some 3rd-rate country w/o cities, roads, etc. - is this really what the majority have chosen as head of their executive branch of their gov't - have there been any RS statements of plots or a possible junta against this chap? While we can't speculate, the media/op-eds certainly can - personally, I think this should be noted in the article. Not to wish this gentleman any personal harm, just to reflect whatever might be bubbling under the surface in their politics. -HammerFilmFan 50.111.6.149 (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feed the trolls please. Ditch ∝ 01:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never feed trolls. This is a serious question - are any RS's currently speculating whether the military may remove him? Little has changed in the attitudes of the military of any country in S.A., especially Brazil's. 50.111.6.149 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish speakers

Hi. I am one and I don't see the source given mentioning "Saudi Arabia, China or Turkey" ANYWHERE. He only spoke about Israel. Could anyone beside me (to have more insight) check that source? Thanks :D CoryGlee (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can check it here [12], where a tweet with the extract is available (the tweet itself here). You can check the original interview here [13] --B1mbo (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proper spelling of his name

Gabriel is of Croatian heritage. He might of been born in Chile but some ancestors of his came from Croatia. Croatian travelled to Chile and Peru. Maybe others but I only know Chile and Peru.

His last name is Borić (Pronounced Borich). Since the ć accent does not exist in Most other non-Slavic languages, we just type it as a c. Like the article has. It is wrong.

I want to change every instance of Boric to Borić. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name is "Boric" according to the Chilean Civil Registry and is the name he has used always. You should use it when talking about his Croatian relatives, but not with Gabriel Boric Font. --B1mbo (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation?

@Dentren Please stop edit warring. Also please revert yourself, as you were reverted, and do not have a consensus for your edit. Yesterday you have created the article about the inflation in Chile, and added a link to it in the article about the president whose term started a month ago. The article is about the history of the inflation in Chile. Hence the quite obvious POV-pushing allegation. Interesting fact is that there was no such addition in the article about the former president. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to expand what is happening with inflation and put the link to inflation in Chile in at more adequate place. The article in question is about what its title says Inflation in Chile. It includes a historical background. Your POV-pushing allegation is something in which the burden of proof is on you. It is also unhelpful to build better articles if the first thing you do at time of disagreement is throwing around such unsubstantiated accusations. Dentren | Talk 09:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have a consensus for your edits. So please explain why you have made such additions, and try to build up a consensus. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus I don't have is yours. You have so far failed to provide any substance to your "POV-pushing allegation". I'm adding relevant information backed by WP:RS, that is the rationale of my editing. If you want to argue otherwise please do; I am open to hearing your opinions (Also, don't misuse templates as you did here). Dentren | Talk 09:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made a single argument in favor of your additions. Please elaborate why you have made such edits, so that others can understand why you have made them. Also please explain why you have linked an article about the history of inflation in Chile, when Gabriel Boric is not even mentioned in that article at all. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing you have used suggests that Boric's government was responsible for the inflation rate. This is obviously not the case so, if you are going to include a mention of the inflation rate, you should reconsider your wording. Maybe something like "When Boric assumed the presidency, Chile's inflation rate was at its highest level for almost 30 years. Burrobert (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your constructive input, I will definitely reword it following your recommendations. The Boric administration has an incipient inflation problem according to WP:RS (La Tercera, Diario Financiero etc.) but can of course not be blamed on the current government. Ragarding the another issue raised here "Please elaborate why you have made such edits, so that others can understand why you have made them." this is the first time ever I have met such a request. Its very unconstructive and as I said "I'm adding relevant information backed by WP:RS, that is the rationale of my editing". Inflation is a relevant issue for the Boric administration that has been raised by WP:RS. Any further request for rationales is just out of place. I always add content to Wikipedia whenever I find it interesting and important. Dentren | Talk 10:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the sentence, as suggested by user Burrobert, and also added an reliable and neutral source in English (Reuters), and added a sentence that is relevant to the economic policy of Gabriel Boric. The article about the inflation in Chile is also linked in the first sentence. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Boric's gov is obviously not to blame for the inflation rate. If that is going to be mentioned in highlight, so should be the gov's economical and political efforts to minimize such impact. Bedivere (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about mentioning it in "highlight".. it is just to reflect what pundits and reliable sources are discussing with regards to his administration. I agree wording has to be clear so as to not blame it (so far) for it, as it is obviously an inherited problem as many other issues are. Dentren | Talk 12:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls

Given this reversal of edit, I wonder by which rationale an article of a president would be devoid of opinion polling? The article on Sebastián Piñera comments on approval ratings, why would Boric article not? To those that worry Boric may be presented in bad light by polls, I say these are just polls, and there are more than one polling service and approval ratings change over time. To be objective is not hide the truth, not to forcefully balance-out news coverage that may not be favourable to a politician. Dentren | Talk 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be objective is not to imply that the president who has been in office for a month is somehow responsible for the inflation that he inherited. To be objective is to create a table or a graph with the opinion poll or approval rating data, and not to add unnecessary comments be it from a far-right or a left wing source. The data speaks for itself and does not need any clarification. The edit that you have made lacks any context, why is it important to mention that? What was his approval rating before? Are the opinion poll biased, are the sources in English, how is it relevant to the cabinet, etc.? Tuvixer (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The said graph can be created in future, indeed, I would like to encourage you to do it. Nevertheless, graphs are not mandatory requirements when discussing opinion polls in articles. To attempt to hide that Boric and his government have had troubles in their first months is not being neutral. You are free to add "positive news" about things related to Boric but have no authority to censor "bad news". Dentren | Talk 17:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again my questions remain not answered. Now you have admitted that your edits are not neutral. What else is there to say. What troubles does the government of Boris have? Tuvixer (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Public perceptions of the president are important in presidential systems. I may be wrong but you seem to be picky about what things to mention, answer this question do you think the presidents tattoos or a dog he left with his parents are more important than the public perction of him during his presidency? Hes approval rate immediately before I don't know, you can add that content in the relevant place of the article rather than try blocking his current approval rating according a poll. Answering another of your questions most opinion polls have detractors that is why on time it would be good to incorporate other polls into this article. I have not "admitted that your edits are not neutral", I do admit they are not definite and are improvable.
Reminder: In this section we discuss opinion polling not inflation. "edit that you have made lacks any context", the context is evident: Boric is president and because of that reason there he is mentioned in opinion polls. Chile is democracy, the opinion of people matters. Dentren | Talk 18:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To have any civilized discussion, you need to first stop edit-warring. It would be kind if you would apologize for your disrupting behavior. Tuvixer (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Two editors object the addition of content regarding opinion polls for Gabriel Boric during his presidency [14][15]. There are claims that the content in question:

  • 1) "lack any context",
  • 2) and such contents ammounts to "unnecessary comments be it from a far-right or a left wing source."
  • 3) "To be objective is to create a table or a graph with the opinion poll or approval rating data"

My question is what do third parties think about these claims and do they find my revised addition of content [16] appropriate for this article? Dentren | Talk 10:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring. It would be kind if you would apologize for your disrupting behavior. Tuvixer (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second Tuvixer. Bedivere (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is common to include information about approval ratings in presidential articles, even if it's a simple graph such as Sarkozy, probably discussed further in another article. I don't see any reason not to include this information as long as the sources are mainstream. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem including them, but with proper context and that implies waiting some time. Perhaps when Boric completes like, six months in office. Sarkozy's approval ratings are appropriate in a historical context. This one's, with just a month and a half in office, seems out of place. Bedivere (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree we should wait until there's clear discussion of the longer-term trends in context instead of citing individual polls. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree Bedivere and ReconditeRodent- opinion polls at such an early point in any politician's term in office are pretty useless. I would remove until more time has passed.Tchouppy (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The apparent popularity of- and expectations on Boric is regular topic among pundits, even before he became president as he his candidacy was deemed almost testimonal one year ago. Such rapid rise has as said drawn much attention. Recent observations and analysis could be expanded, but it would be of better use to expand it over time to produce a temporally more even article. Dentren | Talk 09:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's just one month and a half. Give it some time. Bedivere (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dentren has gone on and disregarded our input readding polls. Why ask for comment when it isn't considered at all? This disruptive behavior is also ocurring at inflation in Chile, where they've attributed equally such effects on the presidency of Boric, who's only been in office for two months (minus a week, actually). Bedivere (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Bedivere should maybe disclose that he is member of Boric's political party and a strong supporter of him, at least if we are to believe his userpage [17]. The position and roles within the party should also be clarified. See WP:COI. Dentren | Talk 09:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Being a supporter of Boric does not make me a member of his party. Additionally, that doesn't change the fact that these opinion polls are just out of context. What is the problem in readding them later with due historical context? Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you say the same about the battles in Ukraine? Sure they will be understood better in future. The same goes for Boric, but that does not mean we will empty the article of information that in future will be better understood. Dentren | Talk 05:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You're literally mixing up watermelons with apples. It's not the same. These require appropriate context. The battles in Ukraine do need context too, but it seems immediately clear as per the casus belli. Bedivere (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "require appropriate context", the context is that Boric is President of Chile. For battles of the Ukranian–Russian War the context is the countries are at war. In both cases the context is clear from the article. It is common knowledge that in democracies the approval of goverment officialss can be polled. Polls data of serious sources dont need a big preamble in the text. Dentren | Talk 16:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus reached to add the content but it was added anyway? What is the point of consensus then? OyMosby (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tchouppy:, @ReconditeRodent: given you two were not involved in the edit war, is there a consensus to add the opinion polls at this time? The original editor seemed to had gone through with adding them back so wanted to make sure. Looking for confirmation as it seems to be 1 vs 4 so far but the 1 put it in anyway. OyMosby (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove it. I think there is enough input already. It's been some time, too. Bedivere (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, remove. Tchouppy (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dentren has restored the content (again). I have reported them at the edit warring noticeboard. Bedivere (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bedivere but you have no right to unilaterally enforce your massive removals of sourced content. Provide valid rationales other than a I don'tl ike it camouflaged under WP:NOTNEWS. Dentren | Talk 02:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just me. I see four other users agreeing with the removal. Bedivere (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

Hi, I wrote a little contribution to the Antisemitism of Boric, that has been deleted by Bedivere. The contribution is enough referenced but I can add more if needed. About the importance of the issue can't be discussed. (In article there is a comment of Boric dog). I will reinsert the contribution and expect that the person that deleted it give his arguments. --2A01:C23:95DF:CF00:309B:92D9:202F:A6A2 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gabriel_Boric&oldid=1110823010"