Talk:Peronism/Archive 2

Ethnic policy of Peronism
Though the article correctly states that Peronism was not a racist ideology, its nationalism included the idea of a more-or-less homogeneous "Argentine people" and explicitly encouraged immigration of Catholic and Latin peoples over others. It seems that Peronism (ostensibly for reasons of political stability) wanted a national melting pot undisturbed by diversity. In addition to that, the DAIE (Argentine Delegation of Immigration in Europe) filtered out most political refugees (except Eastern European Nazi collaborationists), Communists, and many non-Catholics; applications from Jews (and Muslims) were rejected in large numbers. See LEONARDO SENKMAN, Etnicidad e inmigración. I wonder how we can insert this into the article, which seems terribly short at this time. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits, possible need for overhaul
[copied from User talk:Pablo-flores ] These recent uncommented anonymous edits to Peronism strike me as not entirely wrong, but at best a mixed bag. I simply don't know enough to go in and make corrections, and the article is way undercited. I'm calling it to your attention in hopes that you can do a better job than I would. - Jmabel | Talk 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding those edits, I don't really know what to do about them... My first impulse was to revert them because they are unsourced, but then the content of the previous version which was changed was also unsourced, and the current one is, as you said, not clearly wrong, and quite NPOV (with the exception of the wording about fascism). I'm by no means an expert on Peronism and I don't have good sources on me. If you feel you can do better, start a discussion in Talk:Peronism and invite the anonymous editor in question. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article in general eventually needs an overhaul, but I hesitate to wade in without good sources at hand. I'd barely dare write a factual biographical piece on Perón, let alone the much more slippery topic of peronismo. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[end copied]

Perónist propaganda

 * Copied from Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 12 for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There were two essential elements to Perónist propaganda; first, the usual thing that one most associates with this activity: posters, speeches, publications and promotions of all kinds; and second, the practical work carried out by Eva Peron, the President's wife, in the Eva Perón Foundation, the charity she founded and managed, even at a micro-level. It would be difficult to uderestimate the impact of this, and the personal contact it afforded many people with Evita, which was to sanctify her, both living and dead, and, for a time, shore up the authoritarian regime established by her husband. Her work in promoting Perón was also furthered by the establishment of the Female Peronist Party, shortly after women gained the vote in Argentina in 1947. Faithful cadres were sent across the country, everywhere promoting the Perónist message. It was a highly effective, election-winning machine.

Apart from party publications promoting the actions, and more important, pushing the image of the President and his movie-star wife, the normal press channels were also subject to a high degree of control and co-ordination. Opposition newspapers were intimidated into acquiescence, or closed down altogether, as was La Prensa in 1951. Evita also bought her own paper, Democracia, which presented news in an attractive, photo-rich and Perónist light. Radio broadcasts also served the same purpose. Official publications, like The Argentine Nation: Just, Free, Sovereign, were essentially photo opportunities, punctuated by text celebrating the regime's achievments. Others catered for the growing personality cult, with titles like How PERÓN gets it done, A Happy People Acclaims Perćn, The Social Mystique of Eva Perón, so on and so forth.

But the most significant work of all was that carried out among school children, which included the publication of school books and stories like Little Cachito. In this an eight-year-old boy who comes from a family too poor to afford to buy Christmas presents but eventually gets a football thanks to the generosity of Evita and her foundation, which ensures that all the children of Argentina receive gifts, and no-one is left in tears! Children learned to read by pronouncing the names of Evita and Perón. After Evita's death in the summer of 1952 the following little prayer was included in the second-year reader;


 * Little Mother, who art in heaven, good fairy smiling among the angels, Evita: I promise to be as good as you could wish, respecting God, loving my country, loving General Perón, studying and being in every way the child of your dreams; healthy, happy, educated and clean-hearted. Looking at your portrait, like one who swears an oath, I make this promise to you.  Even more, I ask you: have confidence in youe child, Evita!

It was in this area that the work of Perónist propaganda had its greatest impact, outlasting the overthrow of the regime by the military in the 1955 coup. By the 1960s the regime was under sustained attack from radical youth, from the very people who had grown up with the image of Saint Evita and the omnipotent General Juan. Clio the Muse 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Wondering if Col.Perons ideals were admired in his time > In other Latin American nations?Thanks!Andreisme (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Know many talk of Peron as a savior to his Counry Argentina
Know That Col .Peon was considered the Savior of Argentina, the "shirtless ones" the workers adored him and especially his wife Eva Peron. But was he really? Did he give the people a vocie though small?Baveriaboy (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to give a definititive NPOV answer to your interesting question, Baveriaboy (whatever the sense of the word savior in your statement mean). It is certainly an open debate for the Argentine society as a whole. The electoral landspcape tell us that around half of Argentines usually vote Peronist factions, while around a third of Argentines would never ever vote a candidate of peronist origins. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The clear facts are that Peronism allowed large masses of people to become a strong political force, whenereas they had little or no influence during previous eras (see the immediate previous Infamous Decade, for example) and upgraded social and labour rights with things that now are commonplace, but in the time were revolutionary. However, this does not necessarily mean that everything else that Peron did was good, much less that opinions about Peron himself can be extended to the governments of other rulers who consider themselves peronists.
 * By the way, a common mistake commited by modern people that read about Perón is to judge him in isolation. He must be seen in context, and compared with the governments that there were before peronism, and with the ones that took power after the coup against him. Remember that history is not a story, there's never a "begining" (any specific point in history is the product of many other past factors) nor an "end" (whatever is the outcome of something, something else will happen next) MBelgrano (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism category
Do we have any citations to support this? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We didn't have any in this article. Now we do. All fixed. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have read my posts wherein I stated the NYT reference without making asides in edit summaries, ya know. Collect (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be more direct: you should not have restored that category without first ensuring that a citation in this article supports it. But don't worry, I fixed it. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Justicialism = Peronism?
I came to this article looking for Justicialism. Is Peronism the only actual example? Are the two in theory the same thing? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
To my eyes, this article isn't very neutral. It insists with several mentions to "authoritarianism" (even ranking it as one of the "pilars" of peronism through the time, which is a highly inaccurate consideration). In the same way, it deceptively mentions several times the word "corporatism", which has been never or at least hardly ever used by the own Perón in describing his doctrine. It openly accuses him of "subverting freedoms through such actions as nationalizing the broadcasting system, centralizing the unions under his control, and monopolizing the supply of news", making a plain value judgement and taking side. Later, it says "Peronism also lacked a strong interest in matters of foreign policy", as it almost were some kind of Foreign Office of a first world country deciding with whom and whom not a country must establish relations. Because it's false that Perón "was somewhat isolationist". Argentina had a definite and precise foreign policy during peronism, which essentially was aimed at countering U.S. hegemony in the region and in gaining support from other Latin American countries, seeking the "Latin american union" instead of the "Panamerican union". Perón's Argentina had close ties with Ibáñez's Chile, Arévalo's Guatemala and maybe other countries such as Brazil, Paraguay, Perú, Bolivia and Venezuela.

Moreover, it accuses him again of "personally ordering easing arrangements for many Nazi war criminals to be smuggled to Argentina". It is not still definitely proved the responsibility of Perón in these smuggling, at least not at the level of being able to state that he "personally ordered" the refuge of people such as Mengele, Eichmann or Priebke. There was also implication of the Catholic Church, german companies such as Mercedes, and the german community in Argentina. Of course I'm not against it being mentioned in the article, but not in a way that, combined with the other violations of NPOV that scatter on the article, induce any reader to get an inevitably negative and distorted idea of Perón.

The text also cites the opinions of two die-hard conservative and antiperonist men: Supreme Court judge Carlos Fayt and writer Jorge Luis Borges, and you don't know if this is just for illustrating their opinions or as an appeal to authority, since they're not included in a "Criticism" section, but in the description of Perón's policies. Similarly, the text says "Many scholars categorize Peronism as a fascist ideology", and cites James Brennan as the source, and you don't know if it is James Brennan who makes the assertion about the "many scholars", or if Brennan is being cited as an "example" of the "many" who think the same. Maybe there are some other non neutral statements I didn't find, but, I think I can improve this text by making it more neutral and reducing the "antiperonist" bias.

--Franco-eisenhower (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is now relatively short and a quick read indicates it places Peronism as a populism with a broad footprint spanning Fascism to Marxism. In it's current context the above complaint doesn't seem justified so removed the tag. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

--User:rulolp 07:41, 31 December 2011
 * First sorry form my english, I´m from Argentina and the english is some difficult to me. I agree with the user who write about "neutrality". I took the freedom (before read the discussion, sorry) to change the introduction because it doesn't look neutral, the mention of autoritarism is a read from the oposition side with their own interest. I mention it with other common critics, and added different points considered importants to the peronism. I try to mantain the neutrality. I do not make many editions in wikipedia, so sorry if I broke some rule, I just want improve the article. See you later, bye!.

I would also add Pablo Giussani to the author's reference list regarding Peronism's true nature. ("Montoneros, la soberbia armada", 1984, Ed. Sudamericana). SlP200.68.127.16 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Kirchnerismo
The article adequately outlines the origins of Peronism, and the manner by which it was expressed under Peron. However lacking from this description is a fuller illustration of what Peronism has looked like in recent years. Menem caused a massive economic collapse from which Argentina's economy is still recovering. The Kirchners, especially Christina, have been a very controversial political dynasty and had a very divisive impact on the nation's politics. Additionally, the newly elected president Mauricio Macri is notably not Peronist and represents the growing conservative movement in Argentina, especially in Buenos Aires. In sum, this article lacks a full picture of what Peronism looks like in Argentina today and how it has transformed since its inception under Juan Peron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.isolahenry (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed!
Hi, I came to this article to learn, and while I think it is fairly well laid out I was disappointed to see entire paragraphs without citations or appropriate citations. What's even more concerning though is that there's no tag on this page stating such and the page still has a B rating. In my opinion, I think a warning should be put up that it needs more citations and it needs to be set back to a C rating until it is fixed. Any thoughts/does anyone have any more constructive or easy ways to go about fixing this? Thank you. Kmwebber (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

Not very good
This article is not very good.

How could any reasonable description of the history of Peronism somehow fail to even slightly mention his return to Argentina,  re-election as President,  death,  or the rather unsatisfactory reign of his third wife as President ?Lathamibird (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peronism. 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/20110706083051/http://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar:8180/publicaciones/bitstream/1/681/1/ES_9_17_1999_pag_91_109.pdf to http://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar:8180/publicaciones/bitstream/1/681/1/ES_9_17_1999_pag_91_109.pdf

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) 11:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Third way link ambiguous
In the first paragraph, among the defining characteristics of Peronism is listed "A third way approach to economics..." Third way is a disamb page which lists in part
 * Fascism, Nazism and other far right movements often claim to represent a "third way" between Capitalism and Socialism.
 * Third way (centrism), or "radical centre", an economic and political idea that positions itself between democratic socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Would it be better to make mentions of the "third way" in Peronism link to Third way (centrism), or is this incorrect here? -- Writtenonsand 11:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be the right meaning. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so Jmabel :) Third way (centrism) is a movement which tries to superate left-right differences by positioning itself at the center ; in no way does it advocate an alternative to Capitalism ! While Third Position is a tendency in fascist movements which proposes itself as an alternative both to Capitalism and to Communism. If one would have to choose between both, Peron would actually be better in the latter. But this is really controversial, as it amounts, basically, to say that Peron was a Nazi, which is false (despite his acquaintainces with Nazism). I think no linking at all would be best &mdash; or, maybe, and I'll do it (reverse me if I'm wrong), simply putting others examples of third way in the disambiguation page (i.e. Peronism, Gaullism, social market economy, etc.) Tazmaniacs 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is for the reader to disambiguate. After reading, I think the first option (authoritarian movements that often claim to represent a "third way" between Capitalism and Socialism) is actually what I would click after reading this article, not the "centrism" second link.

--93.51.235.135 (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Nationalist and populist
After reading the article, I'm a bit confused by His public speeches were consistently "nationalist" and "populist". Either they were nationalist and populist (in which case the quotation marks are not necessary), they were not nationalist or populist (in which case the words are incorrect), or there's disagreement (in which case that needs to be explicit). I lack the knowledge of the subject matter to make a change -- anyone watching this page, please clarify. --Ilya 08:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for scare quotes. -- Jmabel 15:07, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, what a fandango this article goes through to avoid the proper term: fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.232.199 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fascism
The lead should include the notable fact that Peronism is founded on fascism. This does not seem to be disputable, and is quite relevant for readers to be included in the lead. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gobonobo please explain the revert. Are you contesting that Peronism is based on fascism? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is more a question of whether mentioning Fascism in the second sentence of the lead is WP:DUE. There are NPOV concerns with giving undue emphasis to fascism here. gobonobo  + c 23:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it can be undue, given that Peron was openly a fascist? It's a central piece of information, and should be presented clearly in the lead, its very strange this is not present already. Its common for political ideologies to list their foundations at the beginning, and fascism is the foundation of Peronism. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong. Fascism is not "the foundation of" Peronism. The national populism of Argentina is quite different from European Fascism and the Peronism of the 1950s is different than that of today. Adding "Ideologically it has been described as fascist" to the second sentence of the lead is grossly tendentious, lacking any context and giving undue weight to one perspective. gobonobo  + c 13:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These are not my words. There are many and notable sources stating that Peronism is based on fascist ideology. Following NPOV means this should be included, we can also include what the Peronists self identify as, and notable sources that disagrees with this label. But we should not create any false balance, by non-Peronists the ideology is considered a branch of fascism. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:BRD and stop forcing "Fascism" into the second sentence of the lead. Your original attempt was reverted, but you restored it here. When you were reverted yet again, you restored it again here. The prominence of the claim gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Moreover, it is misleading to claim that "Ideologically it has been described as Fascism" without any context or any mention of any other ideology. gobonobo  + c 23:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have asked Uniru288 many times to discuss, but without success, and the explanation for the revert seemed like a mistake. In the second revision, I added a clarification based on your input. Do you have specific input on how to improve the lead?
 * There are many sources explaining how Peron based his ideology on Italians fascism, and I also provided a modern source from 2018 going into depth of how also this is true in recent years. Not sure why you are saying this is a minority viewpoint? Its a notable viewpoint as several sources are discussing this in depth, and its verifiable. There is a long and complicated history with fascism in Argentina, and it should most certainly be included? I also agree we should add other ideologies from notable sources, but what exactly should be added? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vipz The content you reverted is well within this standards of WP:Verifiability, but you believe other interpretations are missing? Can you propose an improvement? The current lead includes no useful information about the ideology, when there are many notable descriptions available, and in the articles body. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pedantic Aristotle: you seem to be openly edit-warring with multiple editors over your disputed addition, without reaching any consensus and then bringing it back. Content dispute aside, this is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia.
 * The very beginning of the first chapter of Brennan, James P. (1998), the most easily accessible of the sources you added to back up your addition, states that there is no scholarly consensus on the definition or categorization of Peronism, then puts forward the "three-tiered scheme" of existing interpretations, only one of which is "variant of fascism". What you did instead of stating something similar to the source is cherry-pick this latter interpretation and presented it in WP:WIKIVOICE as the definition of Peronism.
 * The WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus for your addition. It is highly inappropriate to cherry-pick information then shift the burden of making it more neutral on other editors. Your addition should do both in the first place. –Vipz (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'm proposing edits actively, sure, but I don't "edit war" content that is being discussed on the Talk page, and I only assume consensus when there is no discussion.
 * It was not clear to me what you were contesting, so appreciate the clarification. I'll skip the lengthy explanations, but Peronism and Fascism ideologies are very similar, the disagreement comes mostly because it does not contain the typical racist elements, and it includes elements of socialism which is odd. But it was not the intention of claiming it was defined only as fascist, but to highlight it is and has been described as fascist, which is certainly the case.
 * I'll propose some wordings based on Brennan then. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of actually rewording it (or 'proposing' it as you say, but proposing should be done here on the talk page) according to Brennan, in Special:Diff/1184852085 you went on to imply "national socialism" i.e. Nazism is not a form of fascism. So not only did you not address one highly undue statement, you added another (a fringe one) immediatelly after. Nothing in these two sentences is verifiable to Brennan. –Vipz (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording from Davide King is better, it was not my intention to imply Nazism specifically, but rather include the mentions of nationalism in the ideology. I specifically highlighted populism and socialism, to clarify that national was a descriptive addition. Those were the exact word combinations used on page 4 from the Brennan source;
 * He goes on to describes two schoools of interpretation, one that "Peronism is a variant of fascism", and the other school with Peronists, conservatives and socialists authors;
 * "These are the interpretations that on the one hand revolve around the concept of populism (at times National Populism), and on the other those interpretations that can be categorized as a form of Socialism (at times National Socialism), with revolutionary implications."
 * On page 4 and 5, there is mention of another 5 scholars that support the fascist label directly, and 5 scholars that include it ambivalently. Paul Lewis writes about this debate, and mentions 8 scholars supporting the fascist label (some are the same as Brennan mentions): https://www.jstor.org/stable/2130025
 * There is a majority of scholars supporting the fascist label, yet the article makes it appear as a fringe label that is more disputed than it is. Many scholars do add clarifications, because its not identical to the typical European version. A large part of the opposition to the label comes from Argentinians and/or Peronists, and its unclear to what extent that should be given precedence. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is a majority of scholars supporting the fascist label" is your original research unless you can point to a source that states exactly that (for the entire Peronist movement), and as I pointed out, Brennan begins his book by quoting a scholar who states that there is no scholarly consensus on the definition or categorization of Peronism. Pages 7, 8 and 9 are unfortunately not available for preview on Google Books. Page 11 says this:
 * "'Fascism' and 'socialism' can fairly be regarded from another perspective, as the schematic expression of two antithetical tendencies that once attempted to occupy the extreme fringes of this vast and many-sided popular movement."
 * This is a movement with left-wing, centre-left, centrist, centre-right and right-wing factions that cannot be duly described all as fascist, hence the explicitly pointed out lack of consensus on a categorization/label for Peronism. The radical right traditions of Peronism certainly have origins in the Peronism of 1950s.
 * Page 17 and 18 have this:
 * "Hans-Jürgen Puhle prefers to speak of an 'authoritarian' variant (Peronism until 1955), for example, and another, a 'democratic' variant, both being able to occur at different moments in the development of the same movement. [...] The Peronism in power between 1973 and 1976 was not a repetition of the intolerant practices of the period from 1950 to 1955."
 * Chapter 2 later chronologizes how the perception of Peronism evolved. I don't think I have time at the moment to read this book further and thoroughly, but from the glance I definitely recommend for editors looking to improve this article. I'll try to familiarize myself with the topic more and see whether I can propose a summarized description of Peronism. –Vipz (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a lot of room for improvement. You are correct there is no consensus, mainly because there is no consensus on the definition of fascism. I agree we should simply summarize the disagreements, and stick to what the sources write.
 * Regarding "There is a majority of scholars supporting the fascist label", you are also correct, that was more a summary of the material I've reviewed, it's not something I've found a source on that we can put into the article. My point was rather that its not a fringe definition, i should rather have said "it is supported by many sources, most of the ones I've found", and it made no sense that this label was excluded from the lead.
 * As with most political movements (e.g. social democracy, communism, liberalism) they have all changed and evolved since their origins. Peronism originated as something similar to fascist Italy, or fascist depending on which definitions you pick, then it evolved through many stages with different presidents, as highlighted in the article. We are also not even entering the discussion on the violent history of fighting communism in this same period in combination with the dictatorships, which in some cases was agreed with the Peronist government.
 * The last 40 years of democracy is more challenging. E.g. Menem moved closer to liberal ideas, and the Kirchernism movement shifted things closer to socialism. The trunk typically remained constant, essentially a strong state with corporatist economic ideas and nationalism.
 * I have limited availability at the moment, otherwise i would have provided more specifics and sources. Thanks. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources describing this in more detail.
 * "the ideology of Peronism, such as anti-liberalism, nationalism, corporatism and the quest for a new society based on a ‘third position’ between liberalism and communism"; https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/7/1/article-p80_80.xml?language=en#:~:text=Although%20a%20number%20of%20key,of%20ideas%20after%20World%20W
 * "Peronism was characterized by nationalism and corporatism, an emphasis on class harmony and the central role of the leader, and the overwhelming presence of a paternalistic state."; https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/argentinian-history-biographies/juan-domingo-peron#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20time%2C%20Peronism,Rock%201987
 * "before the emergence of Peronism, the Argentine fascist movement was the locus of ideas of corporatism in Argentina."; https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203730959-13/corporatism-dictatorship-populism-argentina-federico-finchelstein
 * This source indicates that the origins of Peronist political ideology, which included elements of corporatism, can be traced back to after 1944. The term 'justicialismo', synonymous with Peronism, emerged in 1949, but its ideological roots, including corporatism, were already present in Peronist doctrine; https://www.jstor.org/stable/44484659#:~:text=species%20of%20corporatism,This%20can%20be%20demon Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On the Italian Wikipedia, this approach was chosen:
 * "It is a syncretic political movement, sometimes called populist, combining socialism, patriotism, the economic third way of Italian fascism and nationalistic socialism, and ideas akin to social conservatism on an ethical and ideal level."
 * https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronismo 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)