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)

Political position

Good morning everyone. I am notifying User:Brat Forelli, as they have been involved in this matter. Since my previous thread was invalidated for using AI, I am making this request again here.

The "Left-wing" position is not well-founded at all. WP:CITEOVERKILL is being used to back up this information.

Starting with source number 3, it assigns the left-wing label to the Frente para la Victoria faction (referring to Kirchnerism). Extrapolating the label of a single internal faction to the entire coalition constitutes synthesis and violates WP:SYNTH. The eighth source is a thesis, which violates WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Most of the remaining sources are news articles that use the "left-wing" label simply to provide immediate context for international readers (they do not constitute a structural categorization of the coalition's core ideology). Additionally, sources 6 and 17 are the exact same article published by different news outlets (WP:RS). The only two sources that actually are academic and reliable use generalizations, placing it "on the left of the political spectrum [in the context of that specific election, polarizing the scenario]".

On the other hand, academic consensus shows that when competing for the presidency, the coalition systematically executes a pragmatic shift toward the center or the right at the top of its ticket—as evidenced by the selections of Scioli in 2015, Fernández in 2019, and Massa in 2023—to attract moderate voters and manage the economic administration. Since then, the coalition has been described by prestigious academic articles as centrist. Because of this, I propose changing the political position to Centre to center-left, supported by the following sources:

A source published in the flagship journal of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) by prominent sociologist Waldo Ansaldi.

A study by the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) that describes it as a broad centrist alliance.

A peer-reviewed research paper from CONICET.

An article by JP Morgan detailing the political positions of each political force, and another by MNI Market News establishing the same political position.

In accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Wikipedia must prioritize structural academic consensus over a hodgepodge of press clippings and misrepresented articles. ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Starting with source number 3, it assigns the left-wing label to the Frente para la Victoria faction (referring to Kirchnerism).

The source says, explicitly: Union for the Homeland (UxP), which was the new name for the Front for Victory, the left-wing faction of Peronism associated with the Kirchners. Let us even check the article of the aforementioned Front for Victory. Its successor is Citizen's Unity, and the successor of Citizen's Unity Frente de Todos is precisely UxP.

(they do not constitute a structural categorization of the coalition's core ideology)... [in the context of that specific election, polarizing the scenario]

Are you able to point out where the current sources for the left-wing position claim that they do not regard the subject as left-wing in general, but only in this narrow context? If not, you should not reach conclusions that the sources themselves do not state (WP:OR).

sources 6 and 17 are the exact same article published by different news outlets (WP:RS)

Are you able to explain which part of the WP:RS policy forbids it, unambigously?

On the other hand, academic consensus shows that when competing for the presidency...

Do any of these sources refer to the classification of the subject as left-wing and question it on that basis? If not, then again, you use sources but to reach conclusions that are your own, not of the sources.

Moreover, you claim this and then... you proceed to cite 3 sources that explicitly discuss the subject in context of the presidential elections.

A source published in the flagship journal of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) by prominent sociologist Waldo Ansaldi

This is a lot of WP:WEASEL, and you should avoid calling things or people superlatives such as "flagship" or "prominent" unless you can back these claims up. My comment on this source will be simple - it refers to the candidates and not their electoral alliances. It states the presidential candidate, and then in brackets their alliance and ideology. Now, I do accept that, but then you have no basis to question Renewal Front sources on that basis.

A study by the University of Buenos Aires (UBA)... A peer-reviewed research paper from CONICET.

Yes, both only within the context of the presidential elections. Remember, this is the standard you set yourself.

An article by JP Morgan detailing the political positions of each political force, and another by MNI Market News

You claimed to have "prestigious academic articles" but two-thirds of your sources ended up being bank reports.

The "Left-wing" position is not well-founded at all.

I want to, lastly, point out that amongst 23 sources for the left-wing position, you only took issue with 2 (plus 2 being duplicates), and presented 5 instead. Brat Forelli🦊 20:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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.

Hi Brat Forelli. Thanks for your response. I will address this based on Wikipedia policies.

Starting with source number 3, if a text explicitly claims that Union for the Homeland is simply the new name for the Front for Victory, it is factually inaccurate. UxP is a broad coalition that includes not only the Kirchnerist faction but also the traditional PJ machinery and the historically centrist (or even center-right) Renewal Front. Conflating a broad coalition with just one of its internal factions demonstrates poor political analysis, making it a weak source for defining an absolute ideology.

Regarding the WP:OR accusations, I am not synthesizing or reaching my own conclusions. My academic sources explicitly define the coalition and its ticket as "centro" and "amplia alianza centrista". Presenting peer-reviewed articles that classify any given subject differently than newspaper clippings is not Original Research; it is the very foundation of maintaining a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV).

You also claimed that I only brought bank reports, ignoring the fact that the first three sources I provided are peer-reviewed academic literature from UNAM, UBA, and CONICET. The institutional risk analyses from JP Morgan and MNI were provided simply as additional evidence to show that this centrist classification is objectively recognized across multiple analytical fields. Furthermore, unlike the passing journalistic mentions, the J.P. The report of J. P. Morgan provides a detailed structural breakdown of each Argentine coalition. It explicitly analyzes the historical ideological characterization of Peronism and specifically categorizes the current coalition as "Center - Center Left". According to WP:RS, a highly structured institutional political analysis has much more weight than daily news clippings that use a quick journalistic summary. The same goes for the MNI Market News source.

As for the duplicate sources, padding a reference list with identical news articles published across different URLs is a clear case of citation spam (WP:CITESPAM). Moreover, I did not just question a couple of sources; I challenged the nature of the remaining journalistic sources wholesale.

Passing mentions in news articles that use "left-wing" as a quick journalistic shorthand for international readers do not outweigh the structural analysis published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Quality supersedes quantity according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Maintaining an absolute "Left-wing" label ignores high-quality academic literature that explicitly classifies the coalition as centrist or center-left. To comply with Wikipedia policies, the infobox must reflect this, which is why center to center-left is the academically supported position.

~2026-41143-74 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been already informed not to use AI WP:AITALK, yet you continue to use it and so it spew out hallucinated statements. I am done with this. Brat Forelli🦊 11:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, I will reply again writing absolutely everything myself because apparently, Wikipedia is very sensitive about the use of artificial intelligence.

According to Wikipedia policies, if a text claims that "Unión por la Patria" is a name change for "Frente para la Victoria", it is factually false. UxP is a much broader coalition, with center and center-right sectors like the anti-Kirchnerist/non-Kirchnerist sectors of the PJ, the Renewal Front, etc. Equating a broad coalition to a predecessor front that was almost entirely co-opted by the center-left/left-wing faction shows poor and inaccurate political analysis, making it an unreliable source for defining the current coalition's political position. Therefore, source 3 violates WP:RS and relying on it would be an issue of WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH.

Regarding the WP:OR accusation, I am not synthesizing or drawing my own conclusions. The academic sources I provided explicitly describe the coalition as centrist and not just the candidate (unlike countless sources you have deliberately placed in other Wikipedia articles). Presenting peer-reviewed articles that classify a specific topic differently than newspaper clippings is not original research: It is literally the baseline for maintaining a neutral point of view WP:NPOV.

On the other hand, you claimed that I only provided bank reports, ignoring that the first 3 sources I provided are peer-reviewed articles of unquestionable quality. Furthermore, you leave aside that these same bank analyses provide a structured analysis of every major relevant political force in the country, including their political characterizations. Under WP:RS, these well-structured political analyses hold much more weight than the journalistic articles you have provided.

Regarding the duplicate sources, there is indeed a policy about this; it constitutes a clear case of citation spam WP:CITESPAM. I didn't just question the reliability of two sources; I questioned the reliability of an entire journalistic block of sources that use "left-wing" as a passing mention and quick context for international readers. According to Wikipedia policies, these do not override structured analyses, much less peer-reviewed articles.

If, according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, quality supersedes quantity, keeping "left-wing" in the infobox ignores the high-quality sources that classify the coalition as Center to center-left.

Since you stated that you are no longer interested in continuing the discussion, I will escalate this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard WP:DRN. ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Political position in Infobox

⁠

There is an active dispute about how to define the political position of the coalition taking into account the provided sources. These are the options:

Option 1 (Center to center-left): The centrist position is supported by the following sources:

Option 2 (Center-left to Left-wing): The leftist position is supported by the following sources:

(Note: The Center-left position has not been debated. In addition, there is a peer-reviewed source that states that the coalition is Right-wing.)

I invite any neutral editor to evaluate the sources according to the situation and determine which option represents the most accurate consensus according to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. ~2026-41143-74 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

References