Talk:Justicialist Party

Untitled

Is it actually the opposition? It says that it has a majority of members - and current president Nestor Kirchner also seems to be a member. Secretlondon 22:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't have a majority in the chamber of deputies. I think it might be the lead party in the governing coalition, though. Oh - but Kirchner can't be from this party because he beat Menem who definitely is. Morwen 18:55, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Both Kirchner and Menem are from the same party - one the left wing and one the right. I've checked this with several sources and it does seem to be true. Secretlondon 18:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Its a wiki, you know what to do. ;) My source for the election results is here [1] by the way.

It does have a majority (in both chambers, actually), and both Kirchner and Menem, though arch-enemies, are from the same party. This is already hard to understand to locals, so I figure it's utterly incomprehensible to foreigners. But then again, that's precisely the essence of peronism, a party supported, alternatively and sometimes even simultaneously (!), by sectors of the far right and the far left. (Paradoxically enough, the other major party, the Radical Party, is basically a centrist --moderate-- one.) Sir Paul 03:41, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Source for leader [2]. Secretlondon 21:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ideology

The "ideology" parameter in the infobox has been changed back and forth between "center left" and "populism". I would personally change it to "shameless pragmatism" (and not only in this party's infobox) but we have to settle on something. I'm undecided. There's a common thread of corporativism along its history. If we have to evaluate the current ideology of the main line of the party, it's clearly center-leftist. Nobody would call Menem other than neoliberal, or neoconservative in U.S. usage. So? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, since this has gone on and on without being solved, I'll just remove it (leaving it at "populism", which is not controversial). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

PJ is a party with a strong left-wing leaning, please correct the box in "Peronism", "Social democracy" and "Centre-left". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.182.130 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

'Centre-left' is NOT an ideology, as numerous people have tried to explain to you; however, you are either too igonrant, have limited language skills or have severe problems with communication. As for 'Social democracy', it would need sources, an opinion of a sock puppeteer's IP is NOT WP:V. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see these web sites

• http://www.infobae.com/contenidos/365922-100897-0-Apoyan-la-idea-que-el-PJ-sea-un-partido-socialista
• http://www.argentinamunicipal.com.ar/despachos.asp?cod_des=10167&id_seccion=68
• http://www.radiolaprimerisima.com/noticias/22688%7Ctítulo La peronista socialdemócrata Cristina Fernández asume en Argentina

I think it isn't an opinion of a sock puppeteer's IP

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.14.86 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 

Peronism is an ideology that combines left-wing and rigt-wing (even far-right and far-left!) ideas. Accordingly, the position of the party has not been stable (see above). Newspaper articles are generally not reliable sources, you can find hundreds of sources 'proving' completely marginal theories. I'd keep just Peronism in the infobox, the article itself should elaborate on the party's current stance. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with you. i think "populism" would be controversial. even if kirchner was a leftist, (which imo he's not) we could not put "centre-left", because once he's no longer the leader of the party, then we would have to change it. i guess a party's ideology should be something consistent that goes beyond who's in charge... i think we should leave "peronism", so that the people who want to know what that means actually read about peron and his party, and also read about the history of the PJ by itself.--Camilorojas (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your opinions and support. This reveals that there are people knowledgeable of the subject at hand being left here in wiki (and who have checked this page). It's quite troublesome having to revert alone someone who is as persistent as an idiot (see the 87... IP range's 'contributions' in the page history!) and keeps adding his/her fantasies into all those articles on Latin American political parties. Miacek (t) 18:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The peronist party has all the political spectrum on it, from Montoneros to golpist militars, from Kirchner to Menem, so a more specific "ideology" of it couldn't be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.71.207 (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To Miacek

Why do you think the references that I put in the article are idiot? Why don't you read them? PJ is a center-left political party or a left of the centre. The leaders of PJ are favourable to incorporate in the Socialist International. READ THE REFERENCES AND THE SPANISH, ITALIAN and others versions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.150.48 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not the references; YOU were referred to as an idiot. Don't be surprised, given your persistence and nonsensicalness as evident e.g. here. --Miacek (t) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"To idiot!" makes for a nice toast, doesn't it? Especially with the original, Latin meaning of idiot. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Peronism" is not an ideology

"Peronism" does not match the definition of ideology and neither does its main article define one, therefore it should be not mentioned as such. --NicoBolso 00:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly valid ideology, unlike adding centre-left to the ideology box, let alone Social democracy, which is outright disinformation. --Miacek (t) 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A political movement is NOT the same thing as an ideology. Even if peronism is used to describe a specific ideologic profile (which is arguable, since it fluctuates between nationalism, neoliberalism and social-democracy) it is not and ideology on its own, unlike for example Marxism. --NicoBolso 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

peronism is no longer a trend, isn't it, after all, the official ideology of the party? Peronism is as much an ideology as Marxism is. On the other hand, Putinism is not (yet?) a political ideology. --Miacek (t) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a party considers it its official ideology is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, the use of appropiate and academically correct definitions is required. --NicoBolso 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This could help you further: [3]. --Miacek (t) 12:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever credibility User:NicoBolso's ORish argumentation might have had, adding cn-tagged Social democracy isntead and revert-warring for this and ultimately introducing Fascism (!) with this edit shows his arguments should henceworth be regarded as POV-warriors OR. --Miacek (t) 12:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While the term fascism is often used in a pejorative way, it's still a valid ideology. Whether or not the Peronism is fascist is to be discussed here. --NicoBolso (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

NicoBolso: Peronism isn't, hasn't been and will never be Fascism, if you are a "gorilla" I'm deeply sorry for you. Mariano. 14:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.181.183 (talk)

Some scholarly sources that cover Peronism and the Justicialist Party [4], [5]. The latter one ('Forgotten Continent') is an especially interesting work. --Miacek (t) 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't match the definition. --NicoBolso (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NicoBolso: should you continue to make such inaccurate, inflammatory and arbitrary edits, you will be treated as a vandal.--camr ^nag 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I already started this discussion and provided my arguments. --NicoBolso (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

you have not a single academic source that would support your POV. Instead, you've cherrypicked some blogs, small newspaper opinion pieces et cetera, which have absolutely no encyclopedic value for such a question at hand. It' classical POV-pushing OR fighting that you're conducting here. Typical level of your 'defining and definite' sources: [6]. --Miacek (t) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PJ: Peronism, Social democracy and Center-left

The Justicialist Party is a peronist, social democratic political party. In 2008 when Néstor Kirchner began the president of the party announced that the PJ will take part of the Socialist International and the end of the the collaboration with the Centrist Democrat International. All of the members agree with this decision. Please see the references:

Apoyan la idea de que el PJ sea un partido socialistaEl PJ cambiaría de rumbo ideológico Argentina: diputados aprueban reforma jubilatoria, proyecto va al Senado Cristina de Kirchner gana elecciones en Argentina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.134.34 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

i don't get it, you just don't care about what other people say, do you? 1.the ideology of a party transcends its temporal leadership. 2.what we are discussing here is that it is a pragmatic ideology, so a few references mean nothing. 3.there's people affiliated to the pary and followers that are clearly on the ideological right, fiscal and social.--camr ^nag 12:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This user's ignorance and troll persistance are phenomenal. I suspect we're either dealing with a psychotic or a paid person whose job is to cause as much disruption as possible on articles covering some South American political parties. --Miacek (t) 12:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Can this article be unprotected? There is no dispute between two different camps. It seems it's just one guy here and the same guy on the Spanish version that is making this specious argument. Unprotect and warn him that if he purses this vendetta, he'll be blocked.--137.122.30.218 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem was, he wouldn't get blocked :-( --Miacek (t) 10:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

besides, it's one guy plus dynamic ips--camr ^nag 13:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that this message does NOT belong to me.

As for the article, this is an edit war; we could all have been banned as per WP:3RR. I'll stop with the editions, but we should still discuss this point. --NicoBolso (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

About the ideology

I have read a lot of articles in a lot of internet websites that prove PJ is a center-left and a social democratic party. Why don't you write them in the infobox? Actually PJ's government is oriented at the left-wing position of Argentine political spectrum. Pj isn't only peronist. --Baf09 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you also checked the threads above, first? Peronism is an ideology that includes both more left-wing and more right-wing representatives, moreover, Peronism is in effect a fusion of leftist and rightist ideas. The ideology of the party is certainly not social democracy. If you have read plenty of interesting articles, perhaps you might summarize those in the article. --Miacekand his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a link of social democracy already. Peronism and the centre-left. 03:26, 02 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4451:1216:1100:D09A:D29C:208A:2988 (talk)

leader

it says in the article that the leader is scioli. he might be the de iure head of the party, but clearly he does not call the shots. in the infobox, we should leave leader, but by no means the phrase "it is led by daniel scioli" makes sense.--camr ^nag 15:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, on March 11 Néstor Kirchner will probably re-assume its postion as party leader. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion between Party and Movement/ideology

I really dont undestand why we are still having this comceptual mistake. For example, in the elections appears Rodríguez Saa, Massa, Duhalde like "peronism factions". This article is about the party, and only the party. So it must only be written the candidates of the different elections that represented the party, not other "peronist" but in another party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.37.239 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally i fix that problem after several misses editing incorrectly. I excuse for the amount of changes but fortunately now i think it´s how it supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.37.239 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither Duhalde nor the Rodríguez Saá left the Justicialist Party, so they were candidates of the party, although under alternative electoral alliances. The January 2003 Congress of Lanús allowed the Justicialist Party to skip internal elections and allowed its pre-candidates go to the April general election with as many alliances as they wanted to. The same principle was used in later elections, as the Justicialist Party was not yet "normalized". The same with the legislative candidates going in "alternative" lists who are also part of the Justicialist Party. In fact, every "faction" listed here stretches to non-Justicialist elements (including the "Front for Victory").

Furthermore, the concept of "Peronist Movement" is not referred to a plurality of "peronist parties" but with not limiting itself to "institutional" policits, instead encompassing political action on different social spheres (labour, military, industry, etc.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.185.246 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justicialist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130118051511/http://www.pjn.gov.ar/Publicaciones/00002/00058378.Pdf to http://www.pjn.gov.ar/Publicaciones/00002/00058378.Pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Third position?

The infobox and the § Ideology section refer to 'Third Position'. Apparently this is a term used to identify Peronism as neither left nor right. The article Third Position article, however, discusses a neo-fascist ideology similar to Strasserism. Evidently these are two quite different topics – same name but different meaning – and I don't see any suggestion in this article nor the cited sources that Peronism is fascistic. The Spanish article es:Tercera posición makes clear that the term used in Argentina is unrelated to the latter fascist philosophy. I was inclined to change the link to 'Third Way', however the Morrow source states,

"this "Third Position" has nothing at all to do with the "Third Way" or "Centrism" which was spread by Tony Blair"

I suggest removing 'Third Position' from the infobox and elaborating on the term in the Ideology section. I have removed the wikilink for the reasons stated. --Hazhk (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Position and ideology

Hello (again) @Brat Forelli. It seems to me that the sources you cite to say that the Kirchnerism-Federal Peronism dichotomy no longer exists, or rather no longer coexist within the party, are not sufficient, and do not specify exactly that (the first source, and the only one that could be useful, does not refer to the internal faction of the party, but rather to the space that they tried to form prior to the 2019 elections). With all due respect, it seems to me that this argument seems to be WP:OR from now on. It may be that today it is a party slightly inclined to the left, although there are also right-wing politicians in its ranks. Therefore, it does not seem to me at all correct to eliminate Federal Peronism from factions. It seems to me that it would be correct (since the Kirchnerist faction is the majority, although it does not mean that Federal Peronism does not exist) that the position be from center to center-left. Here are the references. Marty McDonalds (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Marty, nice to see our paths cross again. Sure, let's talk about this!

Federal Peronism does exist as a thing still, it is indeed not present within Justicialist Party as a notable faction anymore however; Federals have moved to their own parties, including some having moved to the anti-Peronist altogether (some parts of the Federal Consensus moved to Juntos por el Cambio). Justicialist Party has been taken over by Kirchnerism and should not be considered to be more divided than your average party. Because sure, Peronist movement is completely shattered across the entire spectrum, but the PJ is a Kirchnerist stronghold. Perhaps this source might be of use to us:

A much smaller fraction, clearly on the right, is in frank political and institutional opposition to the P.J. led until his death by Nestor Kirchner. It initially took the name of “dissident Peronism” and has since 2010 adopted the formal and institutionally recognized name of Federal Peronism. It is against the re-incorporation project of Kirchnerism and combines popular conservatism with probusiness policies “in order to create jobs.” It also emphasizes the fight against crime, a topic neglected by the Kirchners. Its class base, just like that of Kirchnerism, is quite popular sector; and it is stronger outside of large metropolitan areas. Its main leaders are Eduardo Duhalde, Alberto Rodriguez Saa, Francisco de Narvaez, Ramon Puerta, and Juan Carlos Romero, with the support of Carlos Reutemann, and now Felipe Sola, Jorge Busti, Mario das Neves, and a few other provincial figures. They cannot, however, use the label P.J., over which they lost all control.

Thank you for your refereces, but I am not sure what they are really showing. The first source appears to refer to Perón himself. It goes without saying that the PJ of the 1970s, or even the 1940s, is not the same as it is today. I want to discuss the modern party. Second source holds a survey asking voters to place the parties on the political spectrum. This is very interesting, but probably not helpful for defining the political position. It could be good for voter demographics if we wanted to add that section. Third source seems good? Fourth source is from 2006, this is too old, friend.

I think 'centre-left' would really be perfectly fine and would reflect what most sources that are from 2020 or newer claim. Thank you for your scrutiny, man! Brat Forelli🦊 07:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but all the Peronist governors, except Kicillof, are federal peronists. It may be that the Kirchnerist stamp is retained at the national level, but at the provincial level it is very far from being like that (excluding the Province of Buenos Aires). The fact that they do not have the national seal does not mean that there are no more of them within the PJ. That is why I do not believe that federal Peronism should be eliminated from factions, that is why I propose center to center-left. Marty McDonalds (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Marty - let's break it down. Do you mean that all the governors, including Insfrán and such, are nowadays described as Federals? If you can find that label attached to these people then that is an interesting argument. As for what I am arguing - there does not have to be zero Federals, the argument goes instead is that they no longer can be called an organized, functional faction within the party. Divides and factional conflicts appear in every party, but we do not note them. Here I am also influenced by Los sistemas de partidos en América Latina 1978-2015 by Flavia Freidenberg, which says:

Como partidos heterogéneos, peronistas y radicales también albergan diferencias entre sus dirigentes políticos, las que se han manifestado tanto a través de líneas de orientación intrapartidaria como de ejes de referencia territorial. Las diferencias entre líneas internas fueron comunes en la década de 1980 y 1990 en las disputas por la conducción de los respectivos liderazgos partidarios: el Movimiento de Renovación y Cambio, por un lado, y la Junta Coordinadora Nacional, por el otro, en la UCR, y los “ortodoxos” y “renovadores” en el PJ. Sin embargo, desde mediados/fines de la década de 1990 las corrientes minoritarias en cada partido tendieron a escindirse de la organización matriz, a fundar otros partidos y a competir en las elecciones generales (“ir por afuera” en la jerga política vernácula). Como ejemplos de tal fenómeno se pueden mencionar al Frente Grande (década de 1990) y al Peronismo Federal o “disidente” (desde 2005 en adelante) en el PJ, y a ARI y al GEN (desde 2000 y 2007, respectivamente) como desprendimientos de la UCR.

I can propose a solution inspired by the Spanish Wiki, where we would put just 'Centre-left' as the majority position, and restore the factions, which would be Kirchnerists (centre-left to left) and Federals (centre to centre-right). Tendencia Revolucionaria/Orthodox Peronism are not present in PJ so not sure why that Wiki even mentions them, but this is not our problem. Brat Forelli🦊 18:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have found this article from 2019: Post mortem de Alternativa Federal: ¿por qué fracasó la gran coalición peronista?. Basically, the whole thing ended in 2019, when most governors decided to focus on their own re-elections at their districts rather than in the national politics, and then Alberto Fernández and Sergio Massa (the most vocal critics of CFK within Peronism) suddenly joined her. Since then, the PJ and the Kirchners are one and the same. There are Peronist politicians who oppose her leadership, but not the "Federal Peronism", not as a unified faction anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the comment! This article could be very helpful, if Marty finds it sufficient to make the case. Brat Forelli🦊 20:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, to begin with, it seems to me that this source does not even mention federal or dissident Peronism, so it cannot be taken into account when referring to it. That said, there are things that have curiously caught my attention. Investigating what federal Peronism was on the Wikipedia page, I noticed something. I observe that you, Brat Forelli, through an edit have eliminated a source (with the excuse that it did not mention what it said it mentioned, which is a lie) that supported the right with respect to the position of the fraction. It was not just any source, it seemed to be a book. You replaced that source to introduce the position "center to center-right" with a news source. In other words, you replaced a book with a news item. This contrasts with your position that seems to be rigorous in classifying this faction as centrist (you yourself have even given me a source that positions you on the political right). I don't understand what has happened here but I suppose you can explain it to us. Then in one of your last edits I noticed something else. It seems that there is another Peronist faction called orthodox Peronism, which according to several historians is related to fascism. Okay. I notice that through another objection, you eliminate fascism and Nazism from the infobox, and with sources, which as far as I'm concerned do not mention orthodox Peronism anywhere, you insinuate that these qualifications are marginal "only for some groups" or directly false. These inconsistencies sincerely make it difficult to verify your words. On the other hand, here is a book that suggests the permanence of this one within the party using the name of "pejotism", term coined in the first instance by Kirchnerism, which is used by the media as a synonym for federal Peronism. Marty McDonalds (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

You seem to bring up a lot of topics that are not strictly relevant to the article and seem to be more about me as a person or editor. If you think I am not 'verifiable' or such, then I apologize!

I observe that you, Brat Forelli, through an edit have eliminated a source (with the excuse that it did not mention what it said it mentioned, which is a lie)

Yeah, I sustain this because I indeed can't see substantiation. So that is the reason. I am sorry if I missed anything.

This contrasts with your position that seems to be rigorous in classifying this faction as centrist

Not really my position, moreso the the position of the Spanish Wiki from which I claim inspiration in this case.

you yourself have even given me a source that positions you on the political right

Positions me on the political right? I am not sure if my political views are relevant, also not sure if I would agree with being positioned on the right. Do you argue that I "pushed" Federals towards the centre because I am right-wing? No. If you want to discuss my political views or such then you should add me on Discord.

then in one of your last edits I noticed something else.

I am afraid you are going astray with this. I do not approve of WP:HOUND and would fail to see the relevance of this, given that Orthodox Peronism is not present in modern PJ, unless you want to digress.

you insinuate that these qualifications are marginal "only for some groups" or directly false.

What is the case is that it is something disputed, the sources for fascism and Nazism (!) were questionable and did fail to state that, and the person behind that edit was banned from the Wikipedia and consequently continued editing through switching IPs, which is a WP:BE issue. Per WP:CONTENTIOUS, it is important to not present disputed loaded labels as a fact, but rather rely on in-text attribution and so maintain neutrality.

On the other hand, here is a book that suggests the permanence of this one within the party using the name of "pejotism"

Interesting! Let's have a look:

Aquí, haciendo todas las salvedades del caso y en aras de la mera clarificación conceptual que un texto de esta naturaleza requiere, se considera al aparato del PJ (o pejotismo) como un sector diferenciado, del PJ/FPV. “Pejotismo” fue el término acuñado durante el kirchnerismo para descalificar al PJ orgánico, de perfil derechista, corrupto y conservador. Ver https://i bit.ly/pX26

The link that the source includes is from 2014, and there definitely used to be that kind of power struggle within PJ. Kirchnerism has established its hegemony in the party by now, however.

which is used by the media as a synonym for federal Peronism

Generally we want to avoid WP:SYNTH, and if I'm seeing correctly (your link got broken, I managed to find it though, I think), the article you're linking is from 2011. Yes, I am certain pejotismo existed back then. Brat Forelli🦊 18:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

To start, the right-wing source on the next page of the one you sent me says this:

Dissident Peronists (PJ Disidente) or Federal Peronism (a right-wing faction of the Justicialist Party opposed to the Kirchners) [Ramon PUERTA] Front for Victory or FpV (left-wing faction of PJ) [Cristina FERNANDEZ DE KIRCHNER] Peronist (or Justicialist) Party or PJ [Eduardo FELLNER]

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, I hope not. I'm sorry that I didn't understand what I meant, I got confused, I don't usually speak this language. You gave me a source that places Federal Peronism on the right. I don't think the Spanish Wikipedia is a model to follow, it seems to be very messy and without the necessary sources.

Regarding orthodox Peronism. I'm not referring to Donald C. Hodges' source. Not the one you gave me, which although it says that Peronism was never fascist, is a minority opinion and does not seem to contemplate this wing of Peronism. The source you refer to for fascism is not the only one that was part of the article before you removed it.

On the other hand, the book is current, the source you use is not necessarily relevant. I don't know if you found the correct one, here it is. It mentions that Peronism is part of the previous Union for the Fatherland, the Frente de Todos. Marty McDonalds (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I am waiting for you!!! Marty McDonalds (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, my friend! Sorry to have kept you waiting, but you know how it is, a little break is always good.

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, I hope not. I'm sorry that I didn't understand what I meant, I got confused, I don't usually speak this language.

That's perfectly fine, I'm also sorry for not speaking Portuguese, it could've been easier for us. I think Portuguese is a beautiful language, but difficult - or rather, more difficult than Spanish IMO.

Also, thank you for pointing this out, Google Books didn't want to show me the next page and I had no idea this existed. Good boy! pets you

I don't think the Spanish Wikipedia is a model to follow, it seems to be very messy and without the necessary sources.

Maybe, I definitely like to check to make sure I'm doing something broadly agreeable. Some topics it's really good on. For example it has a great biography of Camilo Torres Restrepo that I fully translated to the English Wiki. It also seems to have a good history of the PJ so I should translate it one day, too!

which although it says that Peronism was never fascist, is a minority opinion and does not seem to contemplate this wing of Peronism.

In this case I would say this is something different - there's no majority opinion of Orthodox Peronism being fascist, and in fact this movement rarely appears in scholarly works on fascism at all. One of the most authoritative books on fascism, Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton, examines Latin American strongmen like Perón and Vargas in general, and goes as far as arguing that "fascism did not exist in even the most advanced Latin American countries" and that "Assessing Latin American dictatorships in the optic of fascism is a perilous intellectual enterprise. At worst, it can become an empty labeling exercise." It does not mention Orthodox Peronism much, apart from a footnote stating that Isabel "Perón’s regime killed far fewer people, however, than the seven thousand or so murdered by the Argentine military dictatorship between 1976 and 1983". Of course, "fascism is when you kill people" is absurd, but I'm just quoting Paxton.

As you mentioned, sure, there were other sources given for "fascism", such as the "El movimiento carapintada en Argentina. Las fijaciones estratégicas como condicionantes del proyecto político, rémoras de la Guerra Fría", but these have the same problem as the one I mentioned earlier - they hardly prove the point. This is what I can find in this source. All this says that there were "fascist" (in quotation marks!) sectors that were marginal and "oscilaron" (oscillated, or in other words, tacitly supported) movements including Orthodox Peronism. It's a bad source and does show the banned IP that made this edit was stretching it.

This leaves us only with two sources - first is "El Porteño", I don't know what it is and it's impossible to find the author or access the book itself. Second source is Rodolfo Walsh. Now, Walsh was a good person, and a journalist. But he was personally involved in these events and he also worked under Castro, so it's something that we can only use as attribution rather than as truth. So this is what I'm saying, that there's no such consensus because we don't have books that study fascism and classify Orthodox Peronism as fascism with argumentation. At best we have sources like this that argue Peronism wasn't fascism, and note Triple A without calling it fascist either. So this is what I'm 100% sure we should stay at, friend!

I don't know if you found the correct one, here it is.

Thank you, Marty! It seems it was the book I found and it has the quote that I included. So I think we should also stay by the idea that PJ is a centre-left party that is de facto Kirchnerism-dominated and no longer has a unified anti-Kirchnerist faction. This is what I want to stay with, and I'm reassured by Cambalachero arguing something similar. Thank you for your time Marty, and sorry for any disagreements that we have, I would like Wikipedia to be stress-free! Brat Forelli🦊 08:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, to begin with it seems that the fascist or proto-fascist characterization is commonly used to refer to Maria Estela Martinez de Perón and her government. Even the New York Times refers to this government in this way. So your statement does not seem sufficiently accurate. In addition to this, there are sources that directly describe orthodox Peronism as fascist or a hybridization of the fascisms of the time. Therefore, I do not believe that you are still 100% sure about the "stable" version of said article. Now, returning to the main discussion, the user Cambalachero never expressed that he was defending the centre-left position in the article, but rather he referred to the supposed "nonexistence" of federal Peronism, which seems to be ruled out by the sources that I have brought to the discussion where they clearly point out the permanence of the Federal sectors within the party. Therefore, I continue to maintain my position. The article has to say 'centre to centre-left'. Marty McDonalds (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I believe we will not agree on this then, unfortunately. But this is fine, I understand what you mean. I have some concerns about what you showed me and I will tell you why I still keep my position.

Let me refer to your sources as "5" to 12", respectively, alright? Unfortunately I cannot access the source #5 at all. Source #6 calls Isabelita's regime "proto-fascist", and makes no analysis of how it's fascist at all, unlike Hodges for example. Source #7 argues that Juan Perón was fascist which is not fine at all, as "most authors, analysing the phenomenon in retrospect agree that the term Fascism does not accurately describe Peronism." Source #8 refers to both Isabelita's government and the National Reorganization Process (El Proceso) as fascist - it was already decided at the Wiki page's of El Proceso via consensus that it was not fascist, so I will challenge it for the exact same reason. It also offers no explanation besides just using the label. Source #9 by Finchelstein relies on Triple A, as according to Finchelstein, "the Triple A Cold Warriors who openly stated that “the best enemy is the dead enemy” recognized Isabel Perón as their leader. In the history of global fascism, Isabel Perón has the dubious record of being the first female leader of a neo-fascist organization." This is actually disputed by Hodges, who argues: "Unfortunately for the Montoneros' analysis, the Vandorist bureaucracy was staunchly Peronist and the Triple A never took over the government. Thus their justification for armed struggle against Isabel Peron was spurious. They admitted as much in their 1982 reappraisal." Overall, my point that there is no serious analysis of fascism, as in one where fascism is analyzed (a WP:CONTENTIOUS label) and not just thrown around as an unexplained term, that includes Orthodox Peronism, would stand.

But oki, you also brought up the New York Times article. Interestingly enough, besides the title, it only uses the word "fascist" (or "fascism) once: "... hundreds of leftists have been fired and in some instances the rightist educators who replaced them are frankly fascist in their political sympathies." This stops short of calling the government itself fascist, and "frankly fascist" means the author accentuates that it is their opinion. Source #11 is from 1975 so it was contemporary, and it argues it was "openly fascist" based on a declaration of a single university dean. Last source, #12, alleges that Perón was fascist and antisemitic, which is denied by most academics - example: "Peronism as such had no anti-Semitic or other racial bias. As Ambassador Messersmith reported at length in May 1947, "There is not as much social discrimination against Jews here as there is right in New York or in most places at home." Or here: "Although anti-Semitism existed in Argentina, Perón's own views and his political associations were not anti-Semitic".

From what sources you gave me, the dispute as such revolves around Peronism itself being accused of fascism, which is something I can comfortably present as minority opinion, and I presented a source which goes as far as stating that most authors agree that Peronism was not fascism. It makes no sense to state that these sources might be wrong on Peronism but not Orthodox Peronism in particular. So just like in case of Peronism and El Proceso, this should be shown as disputed.

I see, thank you for telling me about your position. Ultimately I stand by the current version - the Kirchnerist-Federal divide should no longer be included in the infobox, and the party should be centre-left. So I agree with Cambalachero on sectors, and I insist on centre-left. I appreciate our discussion. Brat Forelli🦊 22:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Brat Forelli🦊 22:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's make it easy. If the "Federal Peronism" still exists, surely it shouldn't be hard to bring a source from the last month (not from years ago) reporting something they have done or said. Cambalachero (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Here are. Marty McDonalds (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

References

References