Talk:Peronism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

[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]

Copied from Wikipedia: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 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)

Do we have any citations to support this? I'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'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'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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) 11:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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.^[1]
• 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 — 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)

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)