Talk:Front for Victory

Clarify
"The main opposition of the FPV from inside the PJ are the supporters of former presidents Eduardo Duhalde and Carlos Menem, many of whom have migrated to Kirchner's faction."

I'm totally confused as to what this sentence is supposed to mean. Aren't "the FPV" and "Kirchner's faction" the same thing? So who migrated, Duhalde and Menem? I doubt it. Unless someone clarifies this, I might delete "many of whom have migrated to Kirchner's faction", since it seems safe to assume that the people who still support those guys are the main opponents of the FPV. --Brian Z 02:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a difficult sentence. It should say something along the lines of "The main opposition are the remaining supporters..." and clarify that many supporters of Duhalde and Menem (that is, with the exception of the aforementioned remaining ones) have turned their backs of them and migrated to the FPV. I don't know how to express it any less clumsily, so be my guest. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I gave it a shot. --Brian Z 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FPV is not only a peronist party but it is also a social democratic and a left-wing party, please correct the box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.182.130 (talk • contribs)
 * No, it's not. and please log in if you're going to make such bold claims.--Camilorojas (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Leadership
Who's the leader of the party? there's no info about it in the official site.--Camilorojas (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To Miacek
There are two references that prove FPV is a center-left / left-wing party. READ THEM and the SPANISH VERSION!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.150.48 (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

another version of an article proves nothing, since you can edit that also.--camr Yes, Master... 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Peronism isn't an ideology
Peronism isn't an ideology, FPV and PJ are situated in the social democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.204.129 (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an ideology. check it--camr Yes, Master... 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry for taking this long, but I haven't been in my house for a while now. here are some evidences of what i say, concerning the fpv and the justicialist party. please read them thoroughly.i think this is the first one you should read
 * (did they do anything to change the tax revenue system?)(how about taxing mining and fishing?)(kirchner proposes to lower the age for prosecuting minors)"peronism was a conservative movement"
 * Seeing that my Spanish isn't that good, i didn't catch everything, but i get your point. However, while this may be true, Kircher wants his party to join the Socialist International, if i understand right to, this faction is also a self-described social democratic party. While your sources may be right, it doesn't change the fact that they describe themselves as social democrats, and that its leader wants the party to join a socialist inspired international organization. (I'll waite for your response until i re-add the WP:SOCIALISM template). --TIAYN (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The party itself has an electoral interest in showing itself as leftist. bear in mind that they never say "social democratic" (nor any other "technical" definition), but "left-wing", trying to appeal to the lower classes. regarding the socialist international, that was 2 years ago, and since then, not only the matter hasn't been metioned again, but the pj is still affiliated with the centrist democrat international and the organizacion democrata cristiana de america (which, btw, don't sound that bad until you see who else is part of those organizations). that said, i propose a compromise, if the above just doesn't suit you. i say we leave the infobox with nothing in it (also "peronism" and the socialism template), and we write a section about the ideology dispute, since it's also a matter of discussion here in argentina. oh and thanks for waiting for me to answer.--camr nag 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I consider most of what Camr argues, and most of the sources he linked, as POV; I fully agree with him in separating Peronism from Socialism, based on the Peronist Doctrine proper which described its political aim as a third way between capitalism and socialism, taking elements from both but rejecting to be considered none of them. For what it is said about the FPV intentions of passing as socialist, it is plainly false. We must have in mind that there are both left and right wings of the Peronist movement, and FPV clearly represents its left-wing. So we shouldn't consider it as socialist, of course; but we can consider its politics as clearly located in the left-wing/center-left spectrum of Argentine politics.


 * TIAYN, once again, the quote on which you base your claim Kirchner would have the Justicialist Party affiliated to the Socialist International is not mistaken, but you have to bear in mind two things: the first, that the affiliation process did never occur and it is even less possible now, when NK command over the party is far from certain; secondly, even when the Party would join the international, it won't become a socialist party just for that (as it did not became a Christian-Democrat party for joining other internationals): the Justicialism will remain Justicialist as long as it exists. Whatever the orientation each faction take, the movement will never fall into european political categories, for good or bad.


 * Salut, --IANVS (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, i screwed up. I guess this is a perfect example of not screwing around in something you barely know what is. --TIAYN (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish to make clear that i never said i agree with those news articles I quoted, rather I hoped they would show how people with different political views rebate the idea of kirchnerism as truly left-wing. I also disagree with ianvs in understandig the fpv as the center-left of argentine politics, mainly because the peronism/antiperonism cleavage since the 1940's makes the left/right one much less reliable (or maybe complete or thorough).--camr nag 21:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the recent revert, perhaps it does make sense describing the alliance as a representative of the left wing of Peronism? this would be nothing surprising, given that Peronism includes both right-wing, centrist and leftist trends. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For me it is quite clear that FPV is a center-left Peronist faction. Maybe we should ask for reasons on the contrary. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 10:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

i missed the "peronist" part... i just read left-wing... i think it could be considered a left-wing faction of peronism.--camr nag 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even here in Argentina there is no consensus about this issue. The Front for Victory has been labeled as fascist party by the Frente de Izquierda (a Trostkyist front) and communist by some right-wing people, like former dictator Rafael Videla, and the Communist Party of Argentina supports Cristina, as well. In addition to this, it's hard to tell that peronism is an ideology, since there are many self-proclaimed "peronists" who in fact have little in common, ranging from socialdemocrats to liberal-conservatives. 190.18.21.244 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism
I disagree with the fact of having added the word "conservatism" to its ideology. Kirchnerism never defined itself that way, the reference is based on an opinion article which reflects the views only of the author. I propose, therefore, removing the concept. -- B anfield - Threats here 10:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Front for Victory. 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/20121202044526/http://www.frenteparalavictoria.org/plataforma.php to http://www.frenteparalavictoria.org/plataforma.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Front for Victory. 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/20081120072502/http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/731/37871 to http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/731/37871

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Political spectrum of the Front for victory
Political spectrum of the Front for victory is center-left, not left wing.

For:Vif12vf


 * What you fail to realize is that the Front for Victory was a coalition of three parties, two of which were left-wing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

¨

Edit warring
Please stop edit warring, you have reverted it 4 times in the last 24 hours which is a bannable offense. Per Edit warring, I will try to solve it here before reporting you again. You were blocked one week before, and this time it might be a more lengthy ban. Using WP:OR sources will lead to reverts such as Vif12vd's reverts on you. You have already been blocked before, and engaging in reverts that also break WP:OR, will probably lead to an extended block period. Can any of your sources used be found in Reliable sources/Perennial sources, if none of them can, the sources cannot be verified and backed up, and it therefore breaks No original research which is Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." You yourself state that you searched them up, which proves the point of WP:OR, if you cannot find sources that are counted as reliable on Wikipedia. This is the reason of reverts, failing to acknowledge this and further reverts will lead to a report.BastianMAT (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)