This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chile This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Can somebody be more specific about the neutrality issues raised by the template on top of the article? Bedivere wrote: "reinstated POV tag; although I rewrote part of the article, it suggested current inflation was Boric's gov fault" [1]. But the article says regarding to current inflation that:

Inflation has seen a severe upsurge since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile, during the presidency of Sebastián Piñera, and continued through that of Gabriel Boric. Measured by the change in the Índice de Precios al Consumidor (IPC) in March 2022 relative to March 2021 indicate this inflation rate (1.9%) is the highest known since October 1993.[14] Bread and meat prices increased as well as those of food in general.[14] Prices of food and in particular meat are deemed by the Food and Agriculture Organization to have risen as consequence of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.[15] The item "education" of the IPC also rose signicantly (6.6%).[14] Minister of Finance Mario Marcel has argued against laws that would permit further pesion fund withawals, claiming these withdrawals will lead to further inflation.[16] By April 2022 the annual inflation rate was of 9,4%, the highest in 13 years.[17] This was higher than similar figures for Colombia (8.53) and Mexico (7.45) but lower than Brazil (11.30).[17]

Nowhere in the text is Boric nor his government blamed, rather the text points to the war in Ukraine and pension fund withdrawals as causes. Dentren | ^Talk 08:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It used to only point at Boric's gov. Additionally, it only talks about March 2022 on. There was no inflation before, during Piñera's government? You see there is an issue with the wording and the focus of the entire paragraph? Bedivere (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed the mention to the COVID-19 pandemic to pension funds withdrawals. As I told you on the edit summary, these were a result of the COVID-19 pandemic effects on economy. More money circulating means more inflation. But also prices have increased due to decreasing production during the pandemic, because of lockdowns and other measures in the same sense. Bedivere (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has to reflect what the text says. I do agree there are links to COVID-19, please bring that content in so we can summarize it in the lead. Dentren | ^Talk 12:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then do a proper job and do not try to impose your point of view. The section in question, that of the 2020s (formerly the lead), does not mention at all Piñera's government, when the inflation actually started to hike, and focuses completely in the Boric government. I'm only asking you to write a neutral section about the recent inflation in Chile and all you are doing is "tirando la pelota para la galería". Bedivere (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there's the lead you wrote originally. No POV-pushing, no blaming on Boric, of course (...) Bedivere (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insisting on any particular original version, I think there is much room for improvement. I hope you think so also. There is no reason to bring older versions up again, nor to persist with ad hominem rethorics.

I agree that the Piñera II administration can be mentioned in the lead. I saw you additions on COVID, I think are in some sence good but still lack the clear connection to inflation.. economists were talking that pension fund withdrawals were driving inflation long before Minister Marcel mentioned it. This should be mentioned in the text you added as otherwise readers may left wondering why the article is talking about COVID and pension funds. Dentren | ^Talk 13:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not writing that section. It's a mess you have caused and you should be able to correct it. That is not an ad hominem fallacy; rather, I'm urging you to write a proper paragraph providing proper context. That COVID-19 paragraph may provide some context, but obviously it's not perfect since it was taken almost verbatim from the pandemic article, so any input is welcome in that direction. Bedivere (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is to be a president mentioned in the lead then it has to be Pinera, but to avoid POV and for the sake of neutrality maybe try to avoid blaming the president that swore into office only a month ago. The article in general is very badly written. No user should think that she or he owns the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring us, aren't you, Dentren? Bedivere (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more clear about what do you mean. Dentren | ^Talk 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] You removed the tag when the discussion is still ongoing, waiting for your input. Bedivere (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, which issue is pending? Dentren | ^Talk 22:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Tuvixer's comment and mine, immediately previous to that. Bedivere (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dentren Stop removing the tag without addressing the issues pointed out here. You have already done it several times. Such disruptive behavior is unacceptable. Bedivere (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to explain what neutrality issues the article has that have not been addressed? By refusing to explain what issues you think are still pending is not the way to go. Dentren | ^Talk 04:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There you go.

I am not writing that section. It's a mess you have caused and you should be able to correct it. That is not an ad hominem fallacy; rather, I'm urging you to write a proper paragraph providing proper context. That COVID-19 paragraph may provide some context, but obviously it's not perfect since it was taken almost verbatim from the pandemic article, so any input is welcome in that direction. Bedivere (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If there is to be a president mentioned in the lead then it has to be Pinera, but to avoid POV and for the sake of neutrality maybe try to avoid blaming the president that swore into office only a month ago. The article in general is very badly written. No user should think that she or he owns the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Bedivere (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pandemic section remains largely the same and the issues pointed out by Tuvixer have not been addressed. So please stop removing the tag without addressing the issues and then coming here to point them out, so we can finally agree on removing them. Don't do it unilaterally Bedivere (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the issues pointed out by Tuvixer have not been addressed":

"If there is to be a president mentioned in the lead then it has to be Pinera," - fixed weeks ago

"but to avoid POV and for the sake of neutrality maybe try to avoid blaming the president that swore into office only a month ago." - fixed long any possible misunderstanding weeks ago, where is there blaming on Boric?

"The article in general is very badly written." Very unspecific, not clear what this means, also not neutrality issue.

"No user should think that she or he owns the article", this relate to edit conflicts not to the article content.

"I am not writing that section. It's a mess you have caused and you should be able to correct it. That is not an ad hominem fallacy; rather, I'm urging you to write a proper paragraph providing proper context. That COVID-19 paragraph may provide some context, but obviously it's not perfect since it was taken almost verbatim from the pandemic article, so any input is welcome in that direction." There is nothing indicating a neutrality of POV issue in this comment. A "mess" is usually considered something to put a cleanup banner for, not neutrality/POV one. And even if a cleanup banner would be justified such template has a |reason= entry where you, again, would have to enter something more specific than "It's a mess". Dentren | ^Talk 15:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Have the neutrality issues raised in April 2022 been solved? Can the banner on top of the page be removed? Dentren | ^Talk 05:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't strike me as a good RfC. This seems more like a dispute between editors that can and should be resolved with normal discussion, perhaps seeking third party resolution but I find RfC to be drastic, especially since this is a rather specific issue (most RfCs tend to take the form of e.g. "Here are a few ideas for what we can do going forward, let's see who agrees with what and why"). I am a complete outsider to the areas of finance and inflation, but it strikes me as strange that the lead paragraph is so concerned with what are, as of this writing, recent issues, not presenting a more broad picture of the topic as a whole. Looking elsewhere within Category:Inflation by country, this article type does not seem well established, let alone well developed, so I cannot say whether this is how the article should even be written. As for any potential bias or lack of neutrality, I didn't find much as is, but again I don't find that an RfC is the way to examine this issue. It might be better to consult an admin or an expert in the areas of finance or politics specifically. I don't find there is anything to recommend for or against, as a typical RfC might have. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If you need to ask, probably not Also all articles could be improved. --Seggallion (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user[reply]
• Agree with the above that this isn't a good RFC. It looks like specific neutrality issues have been at least asserted above, so what you should do instead is have an RFC asking a question about those - or, better yet, get people to propose a change and then have an RFC on that change. Asking something vague like "is the article non-neutral" is going to be extremely difficult for RFC commentators to answer without more context or a more specific question. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Inflación en Chile and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Inflación en Chile until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bedivere (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]