Jump to content

Talk:Justicialist Party

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

Untitled

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

Please see these web sites

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To Miacek

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

"Peronism" is not an ideology

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Still doesn't match the definition. --NicoBolso (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I already started this discussion and provided my arguments. --NicoBolso (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

PJ: Peronism, Social democracy and Center-left

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unprotect?

[edit]

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)[reply]

The problem was, he wouldn't get blocked :-( --Miacek (t) 10:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
besides, it's one guy plus dynamic ips--camr nag 13:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

About the ideology

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Confusion between Party and Movement/ideology

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Third position?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justicialist_Party&oldid=1233665705"