Talk:Homeland Force

Fascism

Fascism should be included in the lead and the list of ideologies. It is well known that Peron and Peronism was highly inspired by Mussolini and fascist Italy, and this information is being removed or hidden. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Then that content or discussions regarding it belong on the page about Peronism, not here. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It is already included in the article about Peronism, the discussion here is whether this fairly important piece of information should be included in this article as well. Not sure why some are insisting it should be kept hidden or obfuscated? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lord_Maximoff please explain your revert here. Union for the Homeland is led by the Peronists, who belong to a branch of fascism. In some cases I've seen it called left-wing fascism, but it is nonetheless based on fascist ideology. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pedantic Aristotle: if it is already included in the Peronism article then that is sufficient. We cannot go around inserting possible individual components of an ideology when one term will do, especially if it contains several components (as it would make articles unnecessarily long and unwieldy). Further explanation can be done on the movement or ideology's article. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 21:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you compare the political opposition, it is categorized into many constituent parts, so this does not seem consistently applied; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Libertad_Avanza

As most people are not familiar with Peronism, it seems natural to include the more commonly known ideologies it is based on. I think people are reverting the fascism label, because they assume it is incorrect, but I have not seen anyone actually dispute it. Peronism has gone through various iterations of fascism, but the core elements are very much there. The more recent iteration with Sergio Massa is bringing it closer to its origins, as Kirchnerism included more socialist elements.

As the coalitions in Argentina are fluctuating, and does not have a fixed definition or duration, you will not find sources that comment on the coalitions specifically. The Union for the Homeland is a Peronist coalition including fascist and communist parties, and was formed only a few months ago. You will not have any academic papers describing it directly, because the definition comes from its constituent parts. Should we include sources from the constituents then to describe it as fascist? How about the 2018 book by Montes de Oca? https://www.google.no/books/edition/El_fascismo_argentino/G_hjDwAAQBAJ Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Same argument as made at Renewal Front - in short, we include fascism here if sources specifically call them fascist. We don't include it just because they're Peronist. — Czello ^(music) 20:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Montes de Oca book talks about this in depth, including how modern Peronism is based on fascism. As there are many notable sources discussing how modern Peronism is fascist, it seems notable and a good reason to include it in the article. It would not make sense for any sources to mention coalitions by name, as they come and go frequently, they are not long term or constant as in other countries. The wording could perhaps be evaluated, to clarify that the coalition consists of parties such and such, as the coalition by itself does not have any single ideology. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

6k+ reversions?

I've chosen to extended confirmed protect this page from further edits. I'm not sure who's in the right, but we should not be in revert wars BEFORE we start talking. Who makes a case? BusterD (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Political position

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I am opening this discussion to propose a necessary refinement to the ideology parameter in the infobox, specifically regarding the Center-left to Left-wing classification. While center-left represents an undisputed, well-documented baseline for the progressive wing of this movement, retaining left-wing as the upper boundary is analytically problematic. At present, this categorization relies on a classic case of WP:CITEOVERKILL, where a sheer volume of citations obscures the lack of rigorous political science methodology.

Cuando examinamos detalladamente las referencias que actualmente sostienen la etiqueta de izquierda pura, surgen varios problemas metodológicos evidentes bajo las políticas editoriales de Wikipedia:

• Synthesis and misattribution (WP:SYNTH): Source 3 (the Woodrow Wilson Center report) assigns the left-wing designation specifically to the Front for Victory faction, not to the broader UxP or Fuerza Patria coalition. Extrapolating a single internal faction's label to define an entire umbrella organization constitutes original synthesis.
• Academic standards (WP:SCHOLARSHIP): Source 8 is an unpublished Master's thesis from Lund University, which fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly research.
• Journalistic shorthand (WP:RS): The vast majority of the remaining citations—such as routine dispatches from El País, Forbes, and Politico—utilize left-wing simply as a convenient shorthand to provide immediate context for international readers. While acceptable in daily journalism, passing mentions do not constitute a structural categorization of a political party's core ideology.(Additionally, sources 6 and 17 are the exact same syndicated article).
• The few genuine academic sources in the list (such as Rebón in Global Dialogue or the Rockefeller Foundation report) use phrases like "on the left of the political spectrum" or "the largest party on the left". This is a spatial generalization used to contrast the coalition against its right-wing opposition (LLA or JxC) within the context of a specific election. Describing where a coalition sits relative to its opponents in a polarized scenario is not the same as defining its foundational ideology as strictly 'Left-wing'.

To accurately define the boundaries of this historically catch-all Peronist coalition, we must rely on structural Latin American political science and observe how the movement operates when competing for executive power. In realpolitik, a party's true ideological center of gravity is reflected by its executive leadership and decision-making core.

Academic consensus demonstrates that when competing for the presidency, the coalition systematically executes a pragmatic centrist or rightward pivot at the top of its ticket—as evidenced by the selections of Scioli in 2015, Fernández in 2019, and Massa in 2023—to appeal to moderate voters and manage economic administration. Simultaneously, more traditional progressive figures such as Grabois are permitted to compete in primary elections primarily to prevent left-wing vote leakage. Characterizing a coalition as strictly left-wing when its executive leadership and policy-making core consistently operate from the center fails to withstand historical and political scrutiny.

This centrist reality is documented across high-quality peer-reviewed literature and structured institutional analysis:

• The baseline consensus (UNAM): Prominent sociologist Waldo Ansaldi, publishing in the flagship journal of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), explicitly codes the presidential ticket as UxP, centro. What makes this citation particularly authoritative is that a scholar of Ansaldi's standing treats this centrist characterization as an unquestioned baseline premise. In high-level academic literature, the coalition structurally functions as the systemic center against JxC on the right and LLA on the far-right.
• Electoral strategy and elasticity (UBA & CONICET): A 2023 study from the University of Buenos Aires (Cieza et al.) analyzing the runoff election explicitly defines the electoral vehicle as a broad centrist alliance (amplia alianza centrista), rather than a leftist front. Furthermore, peer-reviewed research from CONICET (Pascual, 2023) highlights the coalition's broad ideological elasticity, noting that it incorporates orthodox elements stretching directly into the centre/centre-right (el centro(derecha) representado por Unión por la Patria).
• Institutional risk analysis: This consensus is not confined to academic sociology; it is equally reflected in structured market and political risk intelligence. J.P. Morgan's 2026 Country Handbook explicitly classifies the coalition's position as Center - Center Left in its primary data tables, while MNI Market News political risk previews systematically define the alliance as Peronism, centre-left, centrism.

While center-left remains an undisputed baseline for the progressive factions within this catch-all coaltion, retaining left-wing as an absolute boundary contradicts the coalition's documented executive strategy and orthodox wings. In accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Wikipedia must prioritize structural academic consensus over a volume of journalistic press clippings.

I propose removing the news snippets supporting the absolute left-wing label, integrating these peer-reviewed and institutional sources, and updating the spectrum parameter to Centre to center-left.

I welcome your perspectives on this proposal so we can bring the article into alignment with scholarly consensus.

References

~2026-41143-74 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)