text:
Andrews Air Force Base

Andrews Air Force Base (Andrews AFB, AAFB) is the airfield portion of Joint Base Andrews, which is under the jurisdiction of the United States Air Force (USAF). In 2009, Andrews Air Force Base merged with Naval Air Facility Washington to form Joint Base Andrews. Andrews, located near Morningside, Maryland in suburban Washington, D.C., is the home base of two Boeing VC-25A aircraft with the call sign Air Force One when the president is on board, that serve the President of the United States, and the President is typically flown in and out of Andrews when travelling from Washington, D.C. by plane.

The host unit at Andrews is the 316th Wing, assigned to the Air Force District of Washington. It is responsible for maintaining emergency reaction rotary-wing airlift and other National Capital Region contingency response capabilities critical to national security and for organizing, training, equipping and deploying combat-ready forces for Air and Space Expeditionary Forces (AEFs). The 316th Wing also provides installation security, services and airfield management to support the President, Vice President, other U.S. senior leaders and more than 50 tenant organizations and federal agencies.

The 316th Wing provides security, personnel, contracting, finance and infrastructure support for five wings, three headquarters, more than 80 tenant organizations, 148 geographically separated units, and 6,500 airmen in the Pentagon, as well as 60,000 airmen and families in the national capital region and around the world. The 316th Wing supports contingency operations in the capital of the United States with immediate response rotary-assets. It also provides security for the world's highest visibility flight line and is responsible for ceremonial support with the United States Air Force Band, Honor Guard and Air Force Arlington Chaplaincy.

The wing commander is Colonel Tyler R. Schaff, and the command chief master sergeant is Chief Master Sergeant Thomas C. Daniels.

History
Union American Civil War troops used a country church near Camp Springs, Maryland for sleeping quarters (now named Chapel Two) and on 25 August 1941, President Roosevelt directed use of the land for an airfield.

Camp Springs Air Base
Camp Springs Air Base was designated on 5 September 1942, and construction began on 16 September 1942. The Maryland World War II Army Airfield of the 1st Air Force was "designated a sub-base of Headquarters, Baltimore AAFld, late Nov 1942"—the 901st Quartermaster Company (Construction) became the base operating unit on 14 December 1942. Camp Springs Army Air Base opened on 2 May 1943, and the airfield became operational 2 May 1943 when the first Republic P-47 Thunderbolts arrived. after the 367th Fighter Squadron was stationed at Camp Springs on 21 April 1943. On 6 June 1943 the Camp Springs headquarters gained command of 4 sub-bases: Baltimore AAFld, Dover Army Airfield, Millville Army Airfield, and Philadelphia Municipal Airport became sub-bases of Camp Springs AAB.

The airfield had 5500 ft runways by 1944 when the 90th Fighter Control Squadron was formed (28 March 1944), and the last Camp Springs combat units (e.g., 535th Fighter Escort Squadron) departed for World War II combat on 10 April 1944. Camp Springs was expanded to become the initial headquarters of Continental Air Forces (CONAF) (activated 12 December 1944)—the 161st AAF Base Unit (CONAF) became the "Andrews Field" operating unit on 16 April 1945.

Andrews Field
Andrews Field was named on 7 February 1945 in honor of Lt Gen. Frank Andrews and in 1946, Andrews was a sub-base of Bolling Field (3 January 1946 – 20 November 1946). Strategic Air Command headquarters transferred from Bolling Field to Andrews. The command of CONAF's Radar Bomb Scoring detachments (e.g., at Dallas Love Field) transferred to Andrews on 17 March 1946 when the "263 AAF BU" was assigned (transferred 23 February 1948) to Carswell AFB.

Andrews was transferred from the Army to the Air Force in 1947, and it was a Headquarters Command installation from 1947 through 1952 and again after 1957. Headquarters Military Air Transport Service controlled the base during the interim period. The year 1947 marked the arrival of the first permanently assigned jet-powered aircraft, the F-80 Shooting Star, at Andrews. The long-lived and versatile training version of the F-80, the T-33, still played an important role in proficiency flying programs at Andrews more than 30 years later.

Andrews Air Force Base
Andrews Air Force Base was designated on 24 June 1948, and in June 1950, Andrews rapidly became involved in combat readiness training for B-25 Mitchell medium bomber crews. Combat readiness training and proficiency flying for military pilots assigned non-flying duties in the Washington area have remained two key elements in the local mission since the establishment of the base. HQ Air Research and Development Command (later, Air Force Systems Command) moved to Andrews from Baltimore, 24 June 1958. With the construction of new facilities beginning in 1959, Andrews had become by early 1962 the primary USAF flight installation serving the Washington, DC, area with the closing of the runway at Bolling AFB.

Andrews' air defense role was strengthened in the 1950s with the latest in fighter-interceptor hardware appearing on the flight line. F-94 Starfires, F-102 Delta Daggers and finally, F-106 Delta Darts formed the backbone of the three fighter interceptor squadrons which operated from the base until 1963.

In the late 1950s Andrews began an annual open house and air show on base. This event later evolved into the Department of Defense Joint Services Open House, an annual event that now brings more than 700,000 visitors to the base every year. The open house is held every year over Armed Forces Day weekend.

In the years since 1959, Andrews' flight operations and importance have increased greatly. In 1961, the last of the Military Air Transport Service's flying units at Washington National Airport transferred to Andrews. This was followed a year later by the transfer to Andrews of all fixed-wing flying activities from Bolling Air Force Base. Andrews has become firmly established as the main port of entry for foreign military and government officials en route to Washington and the United States. In July 1961, the official presidential aircraft was stationed here, known as "Air Force One" when the president is on board. Before 1961, the presidential airplane had been kept at Washington National Airport and Bolling AFB.

In 1963, the Naval Air Facility (NAF), originally established at the former NAS Anacostia in 1919, moved to Andrews. The NAF handles Naval VIP flight operations. The Marine Corps detachment that flies the FA-18 Hornet is located here.

In a major reorganization, Headquarters Command, U.S. Air Force, was disbanded 1 July 1976, restructured under the Military Airlift Command as the 76th Airlift Division and transferred its headquarters from Bolling AFB to Andrews. The 76th remained the parent unit of the Andrews host command, redesignated as the 1st Air Base Wing.

In October 1977, the 76th Airlift Division became the 76th Military Airlift Wing. The 1st Air Base Wing was redesignated the 76th Air Base Group, and the 89th Military Airlift Wing became the 89th Military Airlift Group. The 76th MAW remained the parent unit at Andrews. On 15 December 1980, the 76th Airlift Division was reestablished, the 76th Air Base Group became the 1776th Air Base Wing and the 89th Military Airlift Group became the 89th Military Airlift Wing. On 1 October 1985, the 76th Airlift Division was inactivated as the result of activation of the Headquarters Air Force District of Washington at Bolling AFB. The 1776th Air Base Wing was designated the "host wing" for Andrews AFB and assumed base support responsibilities.

During Operation Desert Storm, Andrews handled 16,540 patients in makeshift hospital facilities located in the base tennis center. On 12 July 1991, the 89th Military Airlift Wing was redesignated as the 89th Airlift Wing and assumed duties as the host wing at Andrews AFB. Support functions previously performed by the 1776th Air Base Wing now fall under the 89th and the 1776th was inactivated. With the consolidation of the two wings, the newly formed 89th Airlift Wing is one of the largest wings in Air Mobility Command with a work force approaching 9,000 people.

Known as "The President's Wing," the 89th Airlift Wing continues to contribute to Andrews' rich history as the elite Air Mobility Command wing for transporting VIPs around the world. Not only does Andrews provide service for America's senior officials, but also kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers, popes, and local and foreign military leaders make Andrews AFB their first stop in the United States.

On 5 January 2005 the Air Force reactivated the Air Force District of Washington (AFDW) as the single Air Force voice for planning and implementing Air Force and joint solutions within the National Capital Region (NCR). This event brought with it significant changes at Andrews. On 12 May 2006, the 89th Medical Group at Andrews and the 11th Medical Group, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C. combined into the 79th Medical Wing where it established its headquarters at Andrews. In June 2006, the 316th Wing stood up under the command of AFDW as the new host unit for Andrews Air Force Base and its nearly 50 tenant units to include organizations from the U.S. Army, the Air Force Reserve Command, Air National Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve and the Civil Air Patrol. The activation of the 316th prompted the transfer of the 1st Helicopter Squadron from the 89th Airlift Wing to the 316th Operations Group. In May 2007 the AFDW, as well as the 844th Communications Group, transferred from Bolling AFB to Andrews AFB.

Merger
In May 2005, several recommendations relating to Andrews AFB were made by the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. The most significant was to realign Naval Air Facility (NAF) Washington, by relocating its installation management functions to Andrews AFB, thereby establishing Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington.

BRAC also recommended relocating several offices of the Secretary of the Air Force to Andrews from leased office space in Arlington, Virginia, thereby reducing reliance on leased floor space and increasing the security for those activities by locating them within a military installation.

Other changes included the relocation of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) headquarters from Andrews to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, and the relocation of the Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA) and its two C-21A to Will Rogers Air National Guard Base, Oklahoma.

The merger with NAF Washington was effective from 1 October 2009, when the joint base was established, with the US Air Force being the lead organization providing management and support services for both installations.

Although sharing parallel runways, NAF Washington was originally considered a separate air installation and maintained a separate Navy/Marine Corps–unique FAA airfield identifier of NSF and an ICAO airfield identifier of KNSF. Prior to merging, these separate airfield identifiers were discontinued on 29 March 2009 and all flight operations in and out of NAF Washington now use the Andrews AFB airfield identifiers of ADW and KADW as appropriate.

On 1 October 2010; the Air Force completed the merge of the 11th Wing and the 316th. The 11th Wing became the host base organization for Joint Base Andrews.

Major commands to which assigned

 * First Air Force, 5 September 1942
 * Continental Air Forces, 17 April 1945
 * Redesignated: Strategic Air Command, 21 March 1946And-c-37a-89aw.jpg

 * Military Air Transport Service, 16 November 1948
 * Bolling Field Command, 8 April 1949
 * Air Defense Command (Attached)
 * Eastern Air Defense Force, 13 August 1950 – 1 July 1963

 * Obama at Joint Base Andrews.jpg greets personnel at the base in October 2010.]]Military Air Transport Service, 1 August 1952
 * Bolling Field Command, 1 October 1957
 * Redesignated: Headquarters Command, USAF, 17 March 1958

 * Military Airlift Command, 1 July 1976
 * Air Force District of Washington, 12 July 1991
 * Air Mobility Command, 15 July 1994
 * Air Force District of Washington, 22 June 2006–present

Major units assigned

 * 394th Base HQ & Air Base Squadron, 14 July 1943 – 10 April 1944
 * 122d AAF Base Unit, 10 April 1944 – 16 April 1945
 * 161st AAF Base Unit, 10 April 1944 – 15 November 1945
 * 64th AAF Base Unit, 16 April 1945 – 15 August 1947
 * 263d AAF (later AF) Base Unit, 17 March 1946 – 23 February 1948
 * 443d AAF (later AF) Base Unit, 25 June 1946 – 27 June 1949
 * HQ Strategic Air Command, 20 October 1946 – 8 November 1948
 * 60th AAF (later AF) Base Unit, 21 October 1946 – 1 August 1948
 * AAF (later AF) Separation Point, 12 March 1947 – 27 October 1949
 * 3d Combat Fighter Wing VLR, 1 April 1947 – 15 August 1957
 * 311th Reconnaissance Wing (311th Air Division), 1 June 1947 – 19 June 1948
 * 2d Bombardment Group, 1 July – 24 September 1947
 * 44th Bombardment Group, 1 July 1947 – 6 September 1948
 * 90th Bombardment Group, 1 July 1947 – 19 July 1948
 * 98th Bombardment Group, 1 July 1947 – 24 September 1947
 * 303d Bombardment Group, 1 July 1947 – 6 September 1948
 * 305th Bombardment Group, 1 July 1947 – 6 September 1948
 * 306th Bombardment Group, 1 July 1947 – 1 August 1948
 * 4th Fighter Wing, 15 August 1947 – 25 April 1949
 * 33d Fighter Group, 25 August – 16 September 1947
 * HQ, Air Weather Service (AWS), 22 November 1948 – 22 June 1958
 * HQ Airborne Air Control Service (AACS), 22 November 1948 – 14 January 1958
 * HQ Military Air Transport Service (MATS), 1 December 1948 – 15 January 1958
 * 1050th (later 1401st, later 1001st) Air Base Wing, 1 April 1949 – 1 July 1969
 * 8500th Air Weather Wing, 1 September 1949 – 23 June 1951
 * 335th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 13 August – 10 November 1950
 * 113th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, 1–16 February 1951
 * HQ Air Supply & Communication Service, 23 February 1951 – 1 January 1954
 * 95th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 1 November 1952 – 1 July 1963
 * 1401st (later 1001st, later 1st) Transport (later Airlift) Squadron, 24 August 1952–present
 * 85th Air Division, 5 September 1955 – 1 September 1958
 * 459th Troop Carrier (Later Military Airlift, later Air Refueling) Wing, 26 January 1955–present
 * Aerial Port of Embarkation, 6 January 1958 – 15 February 1978
 * HQ Air Force Research & Development (later Systems Command), 24 January 1958 – 1 July 1992
 * Malcolm Grow USAF Medical Center, 1 August 1958 – 1 April 2015
 * 1254th-air-transport-wing-MATS.png 1254th Air Transport (later 89th Military Airlift, later Airlift) Wing, 10 July 1961–present
 * 909th Troop Carrier (later Military Airlift) Group, 28 December 1962 – 1 July 1976
 * 6th Weather Wing, 8 October 1965 – 1 August 1975
 * 1st Air Base Wing, 1 July 1969 – 30 September 1977
 * 76th Airlift Division, 1 March 1976 – 30 September 1977
 * Redesignated: 76th Military Airlift Wing, 30 September 1977 – 16 December 1980
 * Redesignated: 76th Airlift Division, 15 December 1980 – 1 October 1985

 * 1776th Air Base Wing, 15 December 1980 – 12 July 1991
 * 79th Medical Wing, 12 May 2006 – 1 April 2015
 * 316th Wing, 1 June 2006 – 30 September 2010, 1 October 2020 – present
 * 11th Wing, 1 October 2010 – 30 September 2020
 * Air Force District of Washington, 1 May 2007 – present
 * U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations Headquarters

Joint Base Andrews

The base is widely known for serving as the home base of two Boeing VC-25 aircraft which have the call sign Air Force One while the President of the United States is on board. The Boeing C-32A, which is used by the Vice President of the United States, is also based at Andrews.

The host at Andrews is the 11th Wing (11 WG), assigned to the Air Force District of Washington. The 11 WG is responsible for maintaining emergency reaction rotary-wing airlift and other National Capital Region contingency response capabilities critical to national security, and for organizing, training, equipping and deploying combat-ready forces for Air and Space Expeditionary Forces (AEFs).

See Joint Base Andrews for a list of units and aircraft now based at the installation.

Geography
Andrews Air Force Base is located at 38.80361°N, -76.87139°W (38.803490, −76.871508), a few miles southeast of Washington, D.C. near the town of Morningside in Prince George's County, Maryland. It is delineated as a census-designated place by the United States Census Bureau. The CDP has a total area of 18.0 sqkm, of which 17.9 sqkm is land and 0.1 sqkm, or 0.51%, is water.

There are two runways on the base; the western runway is 11300 ft in length, and the eastern runway is 9750 ft in length. Two additional runways have been removed, including a minor third runway between the two main runways, and a small T-shaped runway which was closed and demolished by 2008.

Demographics
For statistical purposes the base is delineated as a census-designated place (Andrews AFB CDP) by the U.S. Census Bureau. As of the 2020 census, the resident population was 3,025.

2000 Census
As of the census of 2000, there were 7,925 people, 1,932 households, and 1,864 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 1,158.9 PD/sqmi. There were 2,133 housing units at an average density of 311.9 sq mi (120.4/km$2$). The racial makeup of the base was 65.3% White, 22.8% African American, 0.6% Native American, 3.2% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 3.7% from other races, and 4.4% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino people of any race were 8.7% of the population.

There were 1,932 households, out of which 75.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 86.1% were married couples living together, 7.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 3.5% were non-families. 3.2% of all households were made up of individuals, none of whom was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.39 and the average family size was 3.44.

In the CDP, the population was spread out, with 35.0% under the age of 18, 16.3% from 18 to 24, 44.9% from 25 to 44, 3.6% from 45 to 64, and 0.2% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 24 years. For every 100 females, there were 119.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 126.0 males.

The median income for a household in the base was $44,310, and the median income for a family was $42,866. Males had a median income of $27,070 versus $27,308 for females. The per capita income for the base was $16,520. About 2.6% of families and 2.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including of the total population, 2.8% of those under the age of 18 and none of those 65 and older.

Motor sports
On 2 May 1954, sports car races were held at the base, using a 4.3-mile (6.9 km) circuit made up of runways and other access roads.

title: Andrews Air Force Base


text:
Talk:Peronism

Movement
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to describe Peronism as a "movement" rather than an "ideology". Of this movement, there are several factions, ie the political parties... -- Viajero 13:42 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Race
What's with "Racism is often made out to be integral to fascism"? I suppose that I can't argue too much with "often": plenty of people want to tie fascism to every bad thing that's out there, and I understand the appeal of such a position. Still, for an encyclopedia article, that could use some sourcing. To the best of my knowledge, Mussolini wasn't particularly racist (though he was certainly nationalist and imperialist, and certainly not anti-racist). -- Jmabel 07:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Racism would not have had any appeal in Argentina, a country that was lily-white in the 1950s and is about 97% white today. There were not enough minorities for any racist campaign to have any sort of appeal. Peron did, when speaking to an international audience, come off as an anti-racist. With regards to Argentina's Jewish community, Peron himself did not seem to be an antisemite and there were sizeable numbers of Jewish Peronists, yet his Education Minister, Hugo Wass, was a vocal anti-semite who dismissed many Jewish professors and secondary school teachers. In my opinion, Peron's interests lie in political power rather than ethnic supremacy, much like Napoleon I. (anonymous, 17 March 2005)

I* No real disagreement with any of that, but I will point out that many Poles these days can be quite anti-Semitic without needing to have any actual Jews to blame things on. And there certainly has been no shortage of anti-Semitism in Argentina at various times. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I, too, have a problem with the statement that racism is thought to be integral to fascism. It is not part of the definition of fascism and many fascisms were not racist. I'm deleting said sentence. -ZeroAsALimit

I'd also love to see a little more analysis of what Peronism means in contemporary Argentina. -- Jmabel 07:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article is biased toward National Socialism. Most people who would consider themselves as National Socialists, as opposed to those who label themselves Nazi hunters, anti-fascists, ie. people who are ideological leftists, would see Peronism as something very similar, if not identical to NS. There were no concentration camps in Germany before the outbreak of WWII. There is no such thing in NS as a slave work ideology based on "racist superiority" but a belief that races should be segregated and groups that are considered hostile or criminal (not because of race issues) should be kept out. It was only during WWII that concentration camps became necessary for German war efforts, in the same way, that men were drafted for the army a working force had to be drafted for the war economy.

?
WHO WAS JUAN PERON? THE CASE "GIOVANNI PIRAS - JUAN PERON" (the truth on the origins of Juan Domingo Peron) ¿DONDE NACIÓ PERÓN? a sardinian enigma in the history of Argentina. (That is published by the investigation’s autors Gabriele Casula and Raffaele Ballore). One of the most mysterious and fascinating cases of the modern history of Mamoiada, a village of the central Sardinia in province of Nuoro (Italy), is with no doubt the one of " Giovanni Piras - Juan Peron ":that is to say two names, two individuals, in truth were the same person. Sure, it is hard to believe that mythical General Juan Peron, three times president of the Argentine, was, exactly, Giovanni Piras, that same humble peasant that at the beginning of the century emigrated young in South America. You will all ask why this Giovanni Piras would have had to change identity or why Juan Peron hid his true origin. Piras had to create for himself an Argentine birth in order to avoid the call to the arms for war 1915-18 from part of his native land and to escape the officials of the Italian embassy, who searched the emigrant deserters. In that period Giovanni Piras, with the aid of powerful persons that were also friends, found the most suitable situation to creep in: a substitution of person was put into effect, which served also in order to undertake the studies to the Military Academy, granted only to the Argentinean citizens, born and nationalized in Argentine. To change identity was, in fact, the sole manner to enter the Colegio Militar. Once he became the President of the Argentine Republic, to greater reason his true identity did not have to be revealed, since the Argentinean Constitution states that the President of the nation must be native of the place. An irreversible process, a point of no return had been primed; the situation became very serious and dangerous for Peron because with the person substitution a fraud had happened to the State, a serious crime and not only for a politician. To reveal the true identity meant to compromise his credibility, his deep concept of native land, of " betrayal of the native land, and of being a true, genuine and faithful Argentinean ", that he exalted and repeated in many speeches; it meant to lose his rank, his uniform and his power. To rigor of logic, this was the reason for which he hid his true identity, a much dangerous one for his position; otherwise, Peron would have shown his true origin, as he went proud of it. Peron justified his great love for Sardinia and the Sardinians saying that the paternal great-grandfather had come from that island, therefore he had Sardinian blood in the veins, but later, his alibi of this declared ancestors did not stand firm. In one of the books of Enrique Pavòn Pereyra, a personal biographer of Juan Peron, a great enigmatic draw has a sentence (dictated to the writer from the exiled  Argentinean in his Madrilenian house) on how he jealously preserved the origin of his birth rate; it reads so: “I have played with my destiny a magical bet, and I was successful until today conserving my origins as deep secret”. In Mamoiada this is a case debated from almost sixty years: in the 1951 N. Tola by the newspaper “Unione Sarda”; in the 1984 P. Canneddu whith the book “Juan Peron-Giovanni Piras two names one person”; in the 200/3 the report of Raffaele Ballore an the book of Gabriele Casula “¿DONDE NACIÓ PERÓN? un enigma sardo nella storia dell’Argentina” have illustrated the proofs collected, unmasking and effectively demonstrating plenty of the contradictions of Peron and of the Argentinean historians with documents and photographs, beyond numerous documented oral testimonies and coincidences. The great Argentine press and the living biographers of general Peron never answered to the appeals to discuss the case. Their indisposition to reconsider objectively and serenely the whole story is to be interpreted like fear of the truth and that their studies on the important personage could be knocked down and mocked. The case could feed ideological earthquakes or provoke patriotic resentments. The worries for the risk of tearing open this myth are comprehensible, but the historical truth must not have compromises. From the author’s part, to prove the true identity of Peron in no way must be seen as a discourteous action towards the Argentinean people nor a way to lessen the myth of their former President: if he was elected democratically for three times it means that he must have had some merit, indeed, together with Evita he remains a mythical personage in the entire Latin American panorama. Only after reading the report and the book an objective judgment can be expressed and a conclusion can be attained. The report is documented and deposited, every information is reliable; not only the several oral testimonies are there but, this time, also documentary and photographic proofs. For more informations to the report and the book please visit the site www.piras-per

Position
I think it would be more appriopriate to present Peronism as a syncretic ideology. The anti-communist activity of the Orthodox faction is not covered sufficiently. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your message!
 * The thing is, we cannot have a vibes-based definition on Wikipedia. That Peronism in general is left-leaning is well-sourced.
 * There is also an ideology quite similar to Peronism, namely Nasserism. It also had socialist and anti-communist factions all alike. Yet it is broadly considered left-wing. Brat Forelli🦊  22:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * that is not true. Peronism is considered as a syncretic ideology. 2800:2502:1:9CCB:FF16:96F9:CD3D:4F92 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If a movement has far-right factions, even if the movement became an extreme-right one at a certain point in its history, it cannot be a leftist movement. Which on top of that has countless features. It is a completely biased edition. Monito rapido (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think what you said is true, unless you have actual sources for that.
 * There are sources for Peronism being left-wing that you deleted. Please stop. Brat Forelli🦊  23:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, if I want, in two seconds I can find references to say that Peronism is right-wing. Peronism is classified as right-wing, center-left, center-right, extreme right, extreme left.  That is why it is clear that it is a third position, catch-all or synthetic movement. Monito rapido (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not seem so, however. The disputed part of the article is backed by 8 sources in total, with each position even including a relevant source - each one classifying Peronism as a left-wing ideology in itself.
 * If you mean you can find references in two seconds, that is incredible - what are they then? Can you find 8 as credible ones as the one cited for Peronism being left-wing?
 * Regarding Nasserism and Peronism, my reference to Nasserism is not accidental, as one of the sources does explicitly mention it along with Peronism - Argentina 1943-1976: The National Revolution and Resistance by Donald C. Hodges. And Nasserism is indeed considered a left-wing movement, some right-wing factions developing notwithstanding. So I would say that this idea of "leftist purity" seems to be biased to me instead.
 * Because this logic is quite circular - then a right-wing movement with a left-wing faction is still right-wing, whereas a leftist movement with a right-wing faction is right-wing and cannot be left-wing? I would indeed like to see a source that argues that leftism has a much more narrower definition than rightism. Brat Forelli🦊  04:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you give me reasons why peronism is leftist? Because the leftt is related to socialism, communism an other revolutionary ideologies. Peronism is conservative, nationalist and catholic, those ideologies are characteristics of the traditional right-wing. Monito rapido (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is not about our personal convictions, but simply about these 9 sources that we have.
 * But as to common arguments, Peronism is left-wing since it was based on emancipation on hitherto marginalized and socially excluded groups in Argentinian society, such as immigrants and the working class. Moreover its nationalism was not of imperialist character, but equite the opposite:
 * Pablo Bradbury argues that nationalism of Peronism was not rooted in a sense of expansion or imperialist greatness, but was left-wing nationalism that "found its most prominent expressions in anti-imperialism, whether against British economic dominance or US political interference." He also remarked that "Peronism originated in a military dictatorship, but established a populist authoritarian democracy". The democratizing movement within Peronism was significant, as it empowered previously marginalized groups - Peronism introduced universal suffrage and reshaped the definition of Argentinian citizenship and national identity. Bradbury also points to the racist rhetoric of middle-class and upper-class opponents of Peronism, who called Peronists cabecitas negras ("little black heads"), portraying the Peronist masses as prone to criminality, unsophisticated, dark-skinned and of immigrant background. Michael Goebel likewise points to the inclusive character of Peronism that conflicted with the exclusive nature of fascism - non-Spanish surnames were far more prevalent amongst the Peronist leadership than among any other political movement in Argentina, and "even in the more marginal provinces, Peronist politicians often had rather recent immigrant origins." Cas Mudde stated that "it is not an exaggeration to state that [Perón's] populism in general propelled democracy forward, both by encouraging democratic behavior and by enrolling lower class groups and their quest for social justice in political life."
 * It was not only a class-based (trade union) movement, but there are indeed findings that it contributed to "class consciousness":
 * Regarding class consciousness, sociologist Susan B. Tiano wrote that in the Harvard Project, a survey of working-class attitudes in Argentina during the 1960s, Peronism was found to be a "a major consciousness-increasing force among Argentine workers." Likewise, Munck and Falcón conclude that "Peronism can be seen as an overall consciousness-raising factor, and the ideological cement for the cohesive and solidaristic social structures of the Argentine working class."
 * As for Catholicism in Peronism, let me quote Argentina’s Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History by Michael Goebel:
 * "In truth, Perón’s commitment to Catholicism had been less enthusiastic than that of the nacionalistas long before the state–church conflict spiralled out of control. Most of Perón’s references to Catholicism were made in the years before he became president. They related to Christian charity and Catholic social doctrine, but usually refrained from explicitly defining Argentine identity as Catholic. Even in this early period, after which Perón’s positive references to Catholicism waned, he sometimes derived his understanding of social justice not from Catholicism but from the French Revolution and Rousseau’s social contract; an interpretation that collided head on with the anti-enlightenment ideas of Catholic nacionalistas."
 * But I'm not saying that peronism is right-wing. I'm saying that peronism is sincretic, and you can't only put left-wing. Monito rapido (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked your sources, and I am not sure if they really prove much that you wanted to prove, namely that Peronism is syncretic, let alone right-wing.
 * - First one is El fascismo argentino: La matriz autoritaria del peronismo. Author makes it pretty clear right from the title that they wish to argue for the thesis of Peronism being a variant of fascism. This idea is thoroughly analyzed and described, from both sides of the debate, in the section Criticism of Perón's policies. And some calling Peronism such is already included in the lead. I might say right here that amongst many who argue that Peronism is fascist, they describe it as "left-wing fascism".
 * - Ideology and World Affairs; a Resource Unit for Teachers seems to explore the same thesis, in fact even calling Peronism "totalitarian".
 * - Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Record is a massive book that mentions Peronism 60 times. And in none of these mentions does it refer to it as ideologically right-wing. Do you have a citation?
 * - Authoritarianism, National Populism and Fascism by Gino Germani is interesting. On page 126, Germani writes that Peronism was characterized as "classic fascism, phalangism, left-wing fascism, totalitarianism, Bonapartism, a variant of the usual Latin American military caudilloism-authoritarian populism, national populism, Mediterranean corporativism-centered on corporatist and hierarchical aspects allegedly typical of Latin American societies-national socialism (derived from a fusion of right-wing nationalism and left-wing socialism), and many others." Germani then rejects all these labels, arguing that "In the extensive literature on Peronism one discovers that it often either lacks any scholarly basis altogether or is based on insufficient or unreliable research in the areas of history, sociology and political science." No judgement of Peronism as right-wing.
 * - Transatlantic Fascism: Ideology, Violence, and the Sacred in Argentina and Italy, 1919-1945 is by Federico Finchelstein. Finchelstein was the leading figure of the argument that Peronism is a form of fascism, and his thoughts are explained in detail in Criticism of Perón's policies. He cannot really be used to argue that Peronism is right-wing.
 * - Treasures of War... What is this book? Is this even historical or is it a novel? Look at this writing -
 * I am sorry, but these appear to be rather random finds - they either touch upon the "Is Peronism fascism?" debate or they do not actually corraborate your claim.
 * User:Brat Forelli. First, you are ignoring that there are millions of opinions about the political position of Peronism. Second Federico Finchelstein suggests in that book that Peronism is a mixture of far-right nationalism and non-Marxist socialism.

Third, the book Ideology and World Affairs; a Resource Unit for Teachers - Page xviii says that Peronism is right-wing totalitarianism. Here is a reference to put. https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=s9YlAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1961&dq=%22peronismo%22%22derecha%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOz4-I4Z6EAxVnqJUCHc_lA9I4jAEQ6AF6BAgLEAM Monito rapido (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 * > First, you are ignoring that there are millions of opinions about the political position of Peronism.
 * There are millions of opinions on almost everything political indeed, which would make it impossible to write Wikipedia if we assumed that every opinion is valid and/or in need of inclusion. Not to mention that this is MOS:AWW - I am not giving you these unattributed millions, neither do 10 sources with citations.
 * > Second Federico Finchelstein
 * Germani and Finchelstein are known as leading scholars behind the concept of Peronism being a form of fascism; I also have source that even single these two people out there. This thesis is included later in the lead, and is extensively described in the section I referred earlier, regarding statements for and against that. And lastly the idea of "left-wing fascism", which further muddles the waters.
 * > Here is a reference to put.
 * I looked at the source, and it does have some interesting, uh, statements:
 * "Peronismo, cuya hegemonia en los cuarenta y los cincuenta era fascista de derecha, y en los setenta dio espacio al fascismo de izquierda; y el clásico mundial es la China comunista asuminedo el capitalismo en los ochenta.
 * Peronismo es el eslabón perdido de una particular evolucíon política subterránea de las masas en el siglo XX. Su historia ejemplifica impecablemente la continuidad existente entre el movimentismo de derecha (fascista) y el de izquierda..."
 * What I see here is once again, not only contributing towards the "Is Peronism fascism?" debate, but also even more uncertainty about the author's take on Peronism's political position, especially as once again "left-wing fascism" is mentioned.
 * This comes on top of the fact that I also showed how sources such as Treasures of War and Authoritarianism, National Populism and Fascism are either completely unusable (the former) or fail to confirm your position (the latter). It seems we have given up on defending these sources, and for a good reason - these do appear to be random finds, or rather ones that do not contribute much to discussion. I do question the validity of this whole issue if these sources are presented to me as "proof" and yet prove nothing of sort when inspected.
 * I find it questionable to present a view based on what appears to be a novel about Nazis and hidden gold (Treasures of War...), or stretch the fascist debate beyond it scope, ignoring the problematic nature of this whole debate itself which claims the existence of "left-wing fascism". This all also comes on top of your earlier assertion that a (left-wing) movement with far-right factions cannot be considered left-wing (this becomes completely circular since a right-wing movement would not be considered right-wing if it had a far-left faction; that is unless political left somehow has a much more narrow definition than the right, which it obviously does not).
 * There is no question that right-wing Peronism exists (Orthodox Peronism), but to classify the movement itself as such becomes increasingly sketchy, and I did answer your question regarding the scholars' justifications for Peronism being leftist "in essence". I see someone already applied WP:STATUSQUO on us so we should leave it there. I also do not want to enter the accusations of "removing references" since you did it here, here or there. I lastly want to affirm that this page describing Peronism as left-leaning predates my activity here (no, seriously - you can check).
 * To begin with, those historians you mentioned never referred to Peronism as left-wing fascism. And when an author talks about Peronism being fascist, he is not necessarily from the left or the right (although he is more likely to be from the right). Afterwards you can make all the analogies you want, but your analogies or analyzes should not interfere with your edits on Wikipedia. There are countless analyzes that say that Peronism is a fusion between left-wing and right-wing policies. I asked myself, what is the reason for ignoring these analyses? We are discussing this because a user thought of arbitrarily putting left without consensus like us now. In short, most historians disagree that Peronism is left-wing (they may think that it is right-wing or a synthesis between the two). I don't see any problem, the issue is that you want to leave the article that way even though the majority of sources contradict you (when I talk about the sources I'm not just talking about the ones I included). The article should not be more left-wing and should clarify different positions (which is what it should always have according to Wikipedia policy and what you are delaying). Monito rapido (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The analogies I made are simply responses to the assessments made by you. Unless you want to clarify what you meant, then I would of course apologize for misunderstanding what you wanted to convey back then.
 * > In short, most historians disagree that Peronism is left-wing
 * If that were the case, then we would not have statements such as "Regardless, Peronism is universally agreed upon to be a left wing populism which tends towards the authoritarian, especially during the latter half of Perón's first presidency. Unlike the right wing ideologies of Mussolini and Franco, Peronism relied heavily on unions and the working class."
 * > those historians you mentioned never referred to Peronism as left-wing fascism
 * I disagree. Germani did do that, on page 126, where he lists Peronist characterizations: "classic fascism, phalangism, left-wing fascism, totalitarianism, Bonapartism, a variant of the usual Latin American military caudilloism-authoritarian populism, national populism, Mediterranean corporativism-centered on corporatist and hierarchical aspects allegedly typical of Latin American societies-national socialism (derived from a fusion of right-wing nationalism and left-wing socialism), and many others."
 * Others also acknowledged or even argued for this term.
 * This "left-wing" label makes no sense if you investigate the totality of Peronism; I frankly don't understand why it is still up on the page. On the one hand, it surely is rooted in support for state-incorporated unions and social democratic welfare programs, without a doubt. On the other hand, it is also rooted in inspirations from Benito Mussolini and the nationalism associated with their fascist regime, with opposition to a fully socialist economic model, in fact incorporating the business class into its corporatism. In this original form, it's fundamentally syncretic. And yet even beyond that, Peronism exists far beyond Juan Perón; we see its development into Orthodox Peronism and Menemism, indisputably right-wing ideologies who even explicitly rejected leftism, and Kirchnerism, a more social democratic left-wing ideology (still not fully socialist), as well as the Tendencia Revolucionaria Peronista which was indisputably left-wing and socialist. Today, we have both Kirchnerist (center-left) and Federal Peronist (right-wing) factions within the Peronist political sphere, and even within the same Justicialist Party--which, by the way, is clearly cited as a "Syncretic" or "Catch all" party despite being the hub of the Peronist movement. Why might this be?

 * My point here is that we already have plenty of sources already on Wikipedia articles which clearly demonstrate that Peronism has no single position on the left-right spectrum; it is exactly for this reason that political scientists have struggled with it for so long, that it is a concept working beyond the left-right spectrum. Its variants range from far-left, to center-left, to center-right, to far-right. This frankly should not even be up for discussion, given how well-established this already is; the personal perception of Peronism as merely Kirchnerism demonstrates a weak understanding of the political science of Peronism. LaborHorizontal (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think exactly the same. But the user insists and insists. I have suggested putting it in the ideology section but he doesn't want to. The truth is that it seems to me that the user should be ignored and the absurd rating permanently removed. Monito rapido (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is up on the page since it is not a personal assessment, but rather something rooted in 10 sources - these sources do not refer to Kirchnerism, but rather Peronism overall, as something that is "left-leaning" if to be taken as a single ideology. These sources already contain direct quotes, but I can share full context of these quotes, if there is any doubt that they mean to refer to Peronism itself and not just Kirchnerism.
 * > On the other hand, it is also rooted in inspirations from Benito Mussolini and the nationalism associated with their fascist regime,
 * That Peronism has right-wing elements is acknowledged by the sources and scholars that classify it as left-wing, and I gave some examples on my earlier discussion with Monito rapido on this page. Indeed, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics by Seymour Martin Lipset notes elements of "right-wing and centrist authoritarianism" in Peronism (p. 173) and then also discusses leftist elements in Peronism. Lipset's conclusion is, however, that Peronism is left-wing overall (p. 176). A different source discussed earlier, Right-Wing Populism in Latin America and Beyond by Anthony W. Pereira, also notes how left-wing populism often contains right-wing elements as well, citing Chavez and Lopez Obrador. This is acknowledged on the article as well by calling Peronism 'left-leaning'.
 * As for nationalism, what is often emphasized was that Peronist nationalism was anti-imperialist, or at least considered such; Soldiers of Perón: Argentina’s Montoneros by Richard Gillespie notes this:
 * "Nonetheless, anti-imperialism was certainly present in the official doctrine of Justicialismo and as an often-vague and variously-defined, yet highly emotive and generically-unifying, orientation shared by all the Peronist Movement’s principal social and political components. (p. 17)"
 * Argentina’s Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History by Michael Goebel also analyzes the differences between Peronism and right-wing Argentinian nacionalismo:
 * "Another element that was strong in nacionalismo, but absent from Peronist discourse, was an anti-immigration and, particularly, anti-Semitic bias. Among the Peronist leadership, non-Spanish surnames were far more prevalent than among nacionalistas. Even (or especially?) in the more marginal provinces, Peronist politicians often had rather recent immigrant origins. The descendants of immigrants from the Middle East in Neuquén, Catamarca or La Rioja were a case in point. On the national level, Perón’s government included not only many politicians and unionists of immigrant origin, but also several Jewish advisers. (p. 85)"
 * How much Peronism has to do with fascism, and whether it itself is fascist as all, is also explained in detail in the section Criticism of Perón's policies in the article. Brat Forelli🦊  10:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I already gave you sources that say that Peronism is right-wing, others that say it is a synthesis and others that say it is a Catch-all party. Enough, don't insist any more, there are different opinions and you can't ignore them. Monito rapido (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You did give me sources, and throughout this discussion (or I suppose several, since you started a few threads here, on accident I suppose), I explained the issues that were there - some are unsuitable as they are either novels (Treasures of War) or travel guides (The Rough Guide to Buenos Aires), others discuss Peronism having right-wing and left-wing elements (note that sources that only say that without explicitly using the word "synthetic" are not usable in this context, otherwise it's WP:OR territory) which is also acknowledged by authors cited that classify Peronism as left-wing (even added that one of your sources acknowledge that it is the case for many left-wing populist movements - Right-Wing Populism in Latin America and Beyond by Anthony W. Pereira), and explained the problem of using sources that call Peronist fascist as unapplicable given that some scholars in this debate argue that Peronism is "left-wing fascist" (Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics); the sources you presented, such as Authoritarianism, National Populism and Fascism, likewise acknowledged this position. I even noted how some of my sources argue that the academic consensus is that Peronism is a form of left-wing populism ("Perón and the Argentine Paradox: An Investigation into an Economic Mystery).
 * While the 'left-leaning' position is properly sourced with a plethora of sources, I did engage a lot in this topic with you and hopefully shed some light on explaining the views that these sources present and issues that I noticed in the sources you presented regarding this, as much as I appreciate your time. As for the last sentences of your message, I am not sure what you are trying to tell me. WP:JUSTDROPIT? If you just wish to accuse me of 'ignoring opinions' then it looks like this discussion is a WP:TIMESINK. Brat Forelli🦊  17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Brat Forelli. That a historian says that Peronism is considered mostly leftist does not make it true. The majority does not believe that it is left or right but rather a synthesis. You can't continue defending the indefensible. I gave you arguments, quotes and I refuted your arguments that were simple analogies of your own (what does it matter if some articles talk about left-wing fascism. When historians call Peronism far-right fascism and nationalism, as is the case with Finchelstein, they precisely call it from the right not from the left). As far as I'm concerned, this is vandalism, removing referenced information is vandalism so I'm going to add back the right-wing references and the formatting that I had given to the page. Monito rapido (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Gansley-Ortiz in fact wrote that it is "universally agreed upon" to be left-wing. You just say it is not true and answer with, well, a weasel word.
 * I think the problems with your sources were presented in earlier threads (why create 3 separate ones?) and you moved from defending just some to defending none in particular.
 * Calling me a vandal, or that person reverting your edits before per WP:STATUSQUO, is breaking the fundamental rule of assuming good faith. If you think you can make a believable case of my 'vandalism', you are surely wasting your time edit warring. Brat Forelli🦊  03:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am no longer taking Gansley-Ortiz's opinion as a reference, it was my mistake to use it as a reference, that no longer matters, why talk about a reference that will no longer be used. The reality is that there are different opinions and Peronism "is NOT considered mostly left-wing" so the beginning of the text is wrong because it shows only one part of the opinions and it should be changed. What do you think it should be changed? Or will you continue to ignore the plurality of opinions that exist? Monito rapido (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose you mean that you mistakenly referred to it. I see, I understand - that happens.
 * I do refer to his quote however because what he said is quite impactful - most sources we have on Peronism being called left-wing or leftist are general statements made by authors. They can be chalked up to their views. But Gansley-Ortiz does not do that, he writes: "Peronism is universally agreed upon to be a left wing populism". So he takes it far back and states that the scholarly consensus is for leftism.
 * So when we say "The majority does not believe that it is left or right but rather a synthesis", we are directly contradicted by Gansley-Ortiz. There is also a problem of other scholars who likewise argue that this is not their view itself but the consensus as well, such as Donald C. Hodges and James P. Brennan. If we can present a user with 10 sources, with direct citations, stating the same thing then it does become a question if it is really one-sided and not a valid consensus.
 * After all, there is WP:ONUS and there is a need to not overcomplicate this reality and make even fringe opinions worthy of expression either. I do want to affirm that things like "Peronism is fascism" are included later in the lead, though we need to separate it from the left-right dichotomy because of some scholars arguing that Peronism is "left-wing fascism"; heck, I also have a reliable source that affirms that Peronism is leftist, but also with elements that can be described as "neo-fascist", and progressive at the same time. This ends up contributing to the consensus on it being left-wing though.
 * Lastly, you seem to asked me what I think I should be changed (I think?). Generally I dunno yet, but Obstacles to Change in Latin America by Claudio Veliz argues that Peronism is considered a form of Nasserism. I definitely want to include maybe a paragraph, maybe a section (if it turns out there is a lot of sources on that), that explore this relationship. Otherwise I am also interested in researching the scholars who claim that Peronism is left-wing fascism, because the whole concept of fascism being placed on the left blows my mind. Brat Forelli🦊  17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are nine references that speak of a synthesis, which of course you decide to ignore when saying that it is a leftist movement. The right-wing factions were apart from the beginning, and for most of the story they were protagonists. Peronism is not leftist even if you look at it from above or from below.
 * References :
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=D6u7EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOos7IwaaEAxW0qJUCHa6wAXs4ChDoAXoECAMQAw
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=nE5PEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibyP3awaaEAxXyqZUCHT6NDTI4HhDoAXoECAMQAw
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=dKXnc71NpgQC&pg=PA59&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwili6KlwqaEAxXarpUCHSHfANQ4WhDoAXoECAYQAw
 * https://books.google.com/books/about/God_s_Assassins.html?hl=es&id=gQeLzE60jDgC#v=onepage&q=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=dKXnc71NpgQC&pg=PA59&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwili6KlwqaEAxXarpUCHSHfANQ4WhDoAXoECAYQAw
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=zn8FAQAAIAAJ&q=El+peronismo+combina+izquierda+con+derecha&dq=El+peronismo+combina+izquierda+con+derecha&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihxK2lxKaEAxU_rpUCHfHFDsgQ6AF6BAgJEAM
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=BxUXAQAAMAAJ&q=El+%22peronismo%22+combina+elementos+de+izquierda+con+derecha&dq=El+%22peronismo%22+combina+elementos+de+izquierda+con+derecha&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-hoj2xKaEAxXUqJUCHYqXDXQ4HhDoAXoECAIQAw
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=paJoAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing+and+right-wing%22&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing+and+right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi655iqxaaEAxU8qJUCHeRECp84ChDoAXoECAIQAw
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Gu1jAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing+and+right-wing%22&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing+and+right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTn9HFxaaEAxU4pJUCHdiFDzU4FBDoAXoECAcQAw Monito rapido (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are others who call it a catch-all movement
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=9DwLEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA403&dq=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU4cKew6aEAxVvr5UCHf4ZCxEQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=%22peronism%22%20%22catch-all%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=i01KDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA242&dq=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU4cKew6aEAxVvr5UCHf4ZCxEQ6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=%22peronism%22%20%22catch-all%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=yctqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PP43&dq=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt0YfLw6aEAxXWrZUCHYV4DoA4ChDoAXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=%22peronism%22%20%22catch-all%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=1BRNAQAAMAAJ&q=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&dq=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt0YfLw6aEAxXWrZUCHYV4DoA4ChDoAXoECAkQAw#%22peronism%22%20%22catch-all%22
 * https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=LvcrEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&dq=%22peronism%22+%22big+tent%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjky8vww6aEAxX2jZUCHcACCXMQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=%22peronism%22%20%22big%20tent%22&f=false Monito rapido (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and the listed sources. I am also happy that some of them are directly available (given how there are no direct quotes you gave me, but I obviously understand).
 * One thing that immediately caught my eye is that one of the sources you sent me is The Rough Guide to Buenos Aires, which describes itself as "is the ultimate travel guide to the sophisticated and enchanting capital of Argentina, with clear maps and detailed coverage of all the city's best attractions." While this could be used as a source for articles devoted to tourism, it would not be suitable for political topics.
 * Another issue is that these sources do say something interesting, that Peronism has both right-wing and left-wing elements. That appears to be an accurate assessment. What is less clear is that we do not have Peronism being explicitly called as syncretic. Visualisierungen des Politischen Homophobie und queere Protestkultur in Polen ab 1980 by Julia Austermann discussed the case of a curious Polish political party Samoobrona. Austermann wrote that it "had a strong left-wing economic policy orientation, but combined this with right-leaning, Catholic-conservative values." (p. 152), but does classify the party as left-wing overall (p. 148).
 * Of course, here you could accuse me of doing anecdotes. So let me get to the point and point us to the book where this does happen in case of Peronism: Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics by Seymour Martin Lipset. Lipset notes elements of "right-wing and centrist authoritarianism" in Peronism (p. 173) and then also discussed leftist elements in Peronism. His conclusion is that Peronism is, overall, left-wing (p. 176). Even a source you cited, Right-Wing Populism in Latin America and Beyond by Anthony W. Pereira, also notes how left-wing populism often contains right-wing elements as well, citing Chavez and Lopez Obrador. This is acknowledged on the article as well by calling Peronism 'left-leaning'.
 * Catch-all has the same problem, as it speaks of the movement itself and not the ideology, and we would also have to see how this does not contradict the nature of Peronism as an ideology. The sources shown also refer to Menem and/or Renewal Peronism itself.
 * > The right-wing factions were apart from the beginning, and for most of the story they were protagonists.
 * This might be your opinion, and it is an opinion that I would disagree with. Ultimately this is not something that would be productive to discuss without sources that explicitly say that. Brat Forelli🦊  09:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Although you could explain all this in the ideology section and not in the main section. Since it is not a left-wing movement and there are different opinions about it (like the references that I give you). Monito rapido (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * > Although you could explain all this in the ideology section
 * Right, the ideology section is actually atrocious and only lists "Peronist Tenets" which are after all 'potato potato' and say little without context of what Perón actually wrote and what he also did. I will need to think how to make a coherent section for this though. Probably a collection of statements on Peronism and going through all these sources to see all elements of Peronism that authors list, though then I would also need to mention factions that go against this element (for example nationalized and what Donald C. Hodges called 'non-Marxist socialist' economy are listed as typical of Peronism, yet Menem and Orthodox Peronists were neoliberals).
 * > Since it is not a left-wing movement
 * I suppose that is your view. The thing is that we have enough sources to call it left-wing, with some of these sources going as far as stating that Peronism being left-wing is not just author's opinion, but also the consensus. Sources that participate in the 'Peronism is fascist' thesis are not good to prove that Peronism is right-wing since the discussion thing is muddled by scholars here arguing for the existence of 'left-wing fascism', with some concluding that Peronism is this 'leftist fascism' itself. Scholars like Finchelstein note that Peronism has right-wing and left-wing elements, but that is acknowledged by those who classify Peronism as left-wing as well, with the conclusion being that Peronism is nevertheless left-wing (notably Lipset), with others also noting that right-wing elements are pretty typical in other left-wing populist movements as well (aforementioned Pereira). I can find more sources if it would make you feel better about it. Brat Forelli🦊  19:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Peronism and Leftism
I just realized a similar discussion had already occured because of the same reason. So I'm sorry if I am bringing the topic back again, but as it seems, I do not happen to be the first person whose attention was called by this. Academically, I am well aware that there are several sources that have claimed that Peronism is a left-leaning ideology and I do not underestimate them, but there also are several claiming that it is a right-wing or a center ideology. What I believe it should be done is simply not positioning it in the political compass in the first place (or at least try to do it as few times as possible), as it will always be a topic of debate and there will probably be more people who will bring up this issue in the future. I personally recommed trying to focus on other terms for describing Peronism which are less broad and abstract, and avoid saying it is "leftist", "centrist" or "rightist" as it will always lead to confusion and arguments. I write this not to oppose anyone's stance, but to reach a consensus and move foward on this topic that has already been debated on more than one occasion. Rax9000 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 * No, it is fine, I appreciate you expressing your opinion, especially when you are more concerned about balance than really partaking in that discussion. My main problem was that when I can find a huge amount of sources (most of them used in the article), including ones from well-known political scientists, as well as even statements like "Regardless, Peronism is universally agreed upon to be a left wing populism which tends towards the authoritarian, especially during the latter half of Perón's first presidency.", then it does produce a question if we are not making a mistake by treating all assessments as valid. There is a fair chunk of claims that Nazis were "left-wing", yet these are not taken seriously in the academia, which is why Wikipedia reflects the consensus that it is a far-right ideology. Same applies to left-wing populist parties in general, especially the ones that are socially conservative, such as Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht or Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland. Both parties have some sources that call them "right-wing" or even "far-right", but they are ignored in the view of left-wing assessments being more common and more credible.
 * In the discussion above, the person representing the opposite of my view, cited Right-Wing Populism in Latin America and Beyond by Anthony W. Pereira as one of the counter-sources to me. I looked at the source and it in fact was closer to my own position, arguing that left-wing populism also has some important right-wing elements, and on page 43, it argued that Peronism and the Venezuelan Acción Democrática represent the same form of populism. There is also Populism and Key Concepts in Social and Political Theory by Carlos de la Torre and Oscar Mazzoleni who argue that the main difference between left-wing and right-wing populism is whether the focus is on redistributive economic policies (left populism) or cultural, ethnonationalist issues (right populism) (p.76). Later (p.125), they make it pretty clear that too:
 * "National sovereignty also plays a role in radical left populism as research on Latin American populism has shown. In two of the most prominent cases, that of Peron in Argentina and Chávez in Venezuela, national sovereignty is understood as a trinom that equates people with the nation and ultimately the both of them with the leader. The Peronist doctrine illustrates this best: “Whoever is not a Peronist is not an Argentinian” (de la Torre 2017)."
 * Which for me it would be at least advisable to mention "left-wing populism" when applicable, because the term is in fact broad enough to include Perón. Sure, some might not understand the difference between "left-wing populism" and "leftism", but that would be a problem of just lack of knowledge rather than the incorrect or controversial use of the term. These are also only three sources that I brought up, I have many more but I just wanted to highlight the reasoning that some of political scientists make for that.
 * But going back to the discussion, I think I understand your point and it could be good to make it a "judge for yourself" case where we describe the policies and beliefs of Peronism without explicitly using labels themselves. Though I think we can still include the labels as long as we ascribe it to specific authors and explain their reasoning behind it. I think that just might make everyone happy, as in, being scarce about using terms like "leftist", "right-wing" or "centrist". Brat Forelli🦊  14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Peronism


text:
Stephen Gardiner

Stephen Gardiner (27 July 1483 – 12 November 1555) was an English Catholic bishop and politician during the English Reformation period who served as Lord Chancellor during the reign of Queen Mary I and King Philip.

Early life
Gardiner was born in Bury St Edmunds, but the date of his birth is uncertain. His father could have been a John Gardiner, but also could have been Wyllyam Gardiner, a substantial cloth merchant of the town where he was born, who took care to give him a good education. His mother was said to be Helen Tudor, an illegitimate daughter of Jasper Tudor, 1st Duke of Bedford, but American research from 2011 suggests that this lady was the mother of a different cleric, Thomas Gardiner.

In 1511 Gardiner, aged 28, met Erasmus in Paris. He had probably already begun his studies at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself in the classics, especially in Greek. He then devoted himself to canon and civil law, in which subjects he attained so great a proficiency that no one could dispute his pre-eminence. He received the degree of doctor of civil law in 1520, and of canon law in the following year.

Diplomatic career
Before long his abilities attracted the notice of Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, who made him his secretary, and in this capacity he is said to have been with him at The More in Hertfordshire, when the conclusion of the celebrated Treaty of the More brought King Henry VIII and the French ambassadors there. This was probably the occasion on which he first came to the king's notice, but he does not appear to have been actively engaged in Henry's service till three years later. He undoubtedly acquired a knowledge of foreign politics in the service of Wolsey.

In 1527 he and Sir Thomas More were named commissioners on the part of England, in arranging a treaty with the French ambassadors for the support of an army in Italy against Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. As a canon lawyer, he was sent to Orvieto in 1527 to secure a decretal commission from Pope Clement VII to allow the king's divorce case to be tried in England. In 1535 he was also appointed ambassador to France, where he remained for three years.

Role in the royal divorce
That year he accompanied Wolsey on his important diplomatic mission to France, the splendour and magnificence of which have been graphically described by George Cavendish in his biography of Wolsey. Among the cardinal's retinue – including several noblemen and privy councillors – Gardiner alone seems to have understood the importance of this embassy. Henry was particularly anxious to cement his alliance with King Francis I of France, and gain support for his plans to divorce Catherine of Aragon. In the course of his progress through France, Wolsey received orders from Henry to send back his secretary, Gardiner, for fresh instructions. Wolsey was obliged to reply that he positively could not spare Gardiner as he was the only instrument he had in advancing the king's "Great Matter". The next year, Wolsey sent Gardiner and Edward Foxe, provost of King's College, Cambridge, to Italy to promote the same business with the pope. His dispatched messages have survived, and illustrate the competence with which Gardiner performed his duties.

Gardiner's familiarity with canon law gave him a great advantage. He was instructed to procure a decretal commission from the pope, which was intended to construct principles of law by which Wolsey might render a decision on the validity of the king's marriage without appeal. Though supported by plausible pretexts, the demand was received as unusual and inadmissible. Pope Clement VII, who had been recently imprisoned in Castel Sant'Angelo by mutinous soldiers of the Holy Roman Empire, had managed to escape to Orvieto. Now fearful of offending Charles V, nephew of Queen Catherine, Clement refused to issue a definitive ruling concerning Henry's annulment. The matter was instead referred to his cardinals, with whom Gardiner held long debates.

Gardiner's pleading was unsuccessful. Though the issue had not been specifically resolved, a general commission was granted, enabling Wolsey, along with Papal Legate, Cardinal Campeggio, to try the case in England. While grateful to the pope for the small concession, Wolsey viewed this as inadequate for the purpose in view. He urged Gardiner to press Clement VII further to deliver the desired decretal, even if it were only to be shown to the king and himself and then destroyed. Otherwise Wolsey feared he would lose his credit with Henry, who might be tempted to discard his allegiance to Rome. However, Clement VII made no further concessions at the time and Gardiner returned home. The two legates held their court under the guidelines of the general commission.

King's secretary, conservative and absolutist
Gardiner was a conservative and an opponent of Anne Boleyn, Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell and of any innovation in the Church, although he acquiesced grudgingly in the steadily increasing influence of the Reformation on the royal counsels. A description of his character from George Cavendish declared him "a swarthy complexion, hooked nose, deep-set eyes, a permanent frown, huge hands and a vengeful wit. He was ambitious, sure of himself, irascible, astute, and worldly."

In early August 1529 he was appointed the king's secretary. He had already been archdeacon of Taunton for several years. The archdeaconries of Worcester and of Norfolk were also added to a list of pluralities before November 1529 and in March 1530 respectively; in April 1531 he resigned all three for that of Leicester. In 1530 the King demanded a precedent from Cambridge to procure the decision of the university as to the unlawfulness of marriage with a deceased brother's wife: in accordance with the new plan devised for settling the question without the pope's intervention. In this Gardiner succeeded. In November 1531 the king rewarded him with the bishopric of Winchester, vacant since Wolsey's death. The unexpected promotion was accompanied by expressions from the king which made it still more honourable, showing that if he had been subservient, it was not for the sake of his own advancement. Gardiner had, in fact, argued boldly with the king on some points, and Henry now reminded him of the fact. "I have often squared with you, Gardiner," he said familiarly, "but I love you never the worse, as the bishopric I give will convince you." In 1532, nevertheless, he displeased the king by taking part in the preparation of the "Answer of the Ordinaries" to the complaints brought against them in the House of Commons. On this subject he wrote to the king in his own defence.

Gardiner was not exactly, as is often said, one of Thomas Cranmer's assessors, but, according to Cranmer's own expression, "assistant" to him as counsel for the king, when the archbishop, in the absence of Queen Catherine, pronounced her marriage with Henry null and void on 23 May 1533. Immediately afterwards he was sent to Marseille, where an interview between the pope and Francis I took place in September. Henry was deeply suspicious, as Francis, ostensibly his ally, had previously maintained the justice of his cause in the matter of the divorce. It was at this interview that Edmund Bonner intimated the appeal of Henry VIII to a general council in case the pope should venture to proceed to sentence against him. This appeal, and another on behalf of Cranmer presented with it, were drawn up by Gardiner.

In 1535 he and other bishops were called upon to vindicate the king's new title of "Supreme Head of the Church of England." The result was his celebrated treatise De vera obedientia, the ablest of all the vindications of royal supremacy. "Princes ought to be obeyed", wrote Gardiner, "by the commandment of God; yea, and to be obeyed without question". He certainly believed in the semi-divinity of kings, and the divine majesty's right to rule as if the King's law was God's law. In the same year he had a dispute with Cranmer about the visitation of his diocese. He was also employed to answer the pope's brief threatening to deprive Henry of his kingdom.

During the next few years he took part in various embassies to France and Germany. He was often so abroad, having little influence on the king's councils; but in 1539 he took part in the enactment of the Six Articles, which led to the resignation of Bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Shaxton and the persecution of the Protestant party. In 1540, on the execution of Thomas Cromwell, he was elected chancellor of the University of Cambridge. A few years later he attempted, in concert with others, to fasten a charge of heresy upon Archbishop Cranmer in connection with the Six Articles and but for the personal intervention of the king he would probably have succeeded.

Despite having supported royal supremacy, he was a thorough opponent of the Reformation from a doctrinal point of view, and is thought to have been a leader of the Prebendaries' Plot against Cranmer. He had not approved of Henry's general treatment of the church, especially during the ascendancy of Cromwell. In 1544 a relation of his, named German Gardiner, whom he employed as his secretary, was executed for treason in reference to the king's supremacy, and his enemies insinuated to the king that he himself was of his secretary's way of thinking. The king had need of him quite as much as he had of Cranmer; for it was Gardiner who, even under royal supremacy, was anxious to prove that England had not fallen away from the faith, while Cranmer's authority as primate was necessary to upholding that supremacy.

Thus Gardiner and the archbishop maintained opposite sides of the king's church policy; and though Gardiner was encouraged by the king to put up articles against the archbishop for heresy, the archbishop could always rely on the king's protection in the end. Protestantism was gaining ground in high places, especially after the king's marriage to Catherine Parr; the Queen herself was nearly committed for it at one time, when Gardiner, with the king's approbation, censured some of her expressions in conversation. Just after her marriage, four men of the Court were condemned at Windsor and three of them were burned. The fourth, who was the theologian and composer John Merbecke, was pardoned by Gardiner's procurement, who said he was "but a musician".

In 1546 Gardiner was the significant person involved in a conservative plot to discredit Maud Lane who was Catherine Parr's cousin, Gentlewoman and confidante. The plan was to find evidence of her heresy but the plot failed and plans to kidnap the queen and two of her ladies were not enacted. Gardiner's position was reduced by this.

Edward VI's reign
Great as Gardiner's influence had been with Henry VIII, his name was omitted from the king's will, though Henry was believed to have intended making him one of his executors. Henry had made provision in his will for a 16-man Council to rule England during his son Edward's minority (Edward VI). Gardiner was excluded from this council. Edward Seymour, a brother of Jane Seymour, seized power as Protector Somerset and he and his Council introduced radical Protestant reforms. Gardiner completely opposed these reforms. Between the time of Henry VIII's death in January 1547 and the end of that year, Gardiner wrote at least 25 indignant letters arguing that the reforms were both theologically wrong and unconstitutional. Most of these letters were addressed to Somerset. He resisted the visitation of his Winchester diocese by the ecclesiastical authorities. His remonstrances resulted in imprisonment in the Fleet, and the visitation of his diocese was held during his incarceration. Although soon released, he was summoned before the council, which demanded an explanation. Refusing to answer satisfactorily on some points, Gardiner was imprisoned in the Tower of London in June 1548. Eventually he was given a lengthy appearance before the Privy Council, beginning in December 1550 and, in February 1551 he was deprived of his bishopric and returned to the Tower where he remained for the rest of the reign (a further two years). During this time he unsuccessfully requested his acknowledged right as one of the Lords Spiritual to appear before the House of Lords. His bishopric was given to John Ponet, a chaplain of Cranmer's, translated from the bishopric of Rochester.

Mary I's reign

At the accession of Queen Mary I, the Duke of Norfolk and other state prisoners of high rank were in the Tower along with Gardiner; but the Queen, on her first entry into London, set them all free. Gardiner was restored to his Bishopric and appointed Lord Chancellor, and he placed the crown on the Queen's head at her coronation. He also opened her first parliament and for some time was her leading councillor. He was now also called upon, in old age, to undo not a little of the work in which he had been instrumental in his earlier years – to demonstrate the legitimacy of the Queen's birth and the legality of her mother's marriage, to restore the old religion, and to recant his own words touching the royal supremacy.

It is said that he wrote a formal Palinodia or retractation of his book De vera obedientia; but the reference is probably to his sermon at the start of Advent, 1554, after Cardinal (later Archbishop of Canterbury) Reginald Pole had absolved the kingdom from schism. As chancellor he had the onerous task of negotiating the Queen's marriage treaty with Philip II of Spain, for which he shared a general repugnance. In executing it, he took care to make the terms as advantageous for England as possible, with express provision that the Spaniards should in no way be allowed to interfere in the government of the country. After the appointment of Cardinal Pole, and the reconciliation of the realm to the see of Rome, he still remained in high favour. How far he was responsible for the persecutions which afterwards arose is open to debate. He no doubt approved of the act, which passed the House of Lords while he presided there as chancellor, for the revival of the heresy laws.

There is no doubt that he sat in judgment on Bishop John Hooper, and on several other preachers whom he condemned to be degraded from the priesthood. The natural consequence of this was that when they declined, even as laymen, to be reconciled to the Roman Church, they were handed over to the secular power to be burned. In his diocese no victim of the persecution is known to have suffered until after his death; and, much as he was already maligned by opponents, there is much to show that his personality was generous and humane. In May 1555 he went to Calais as one of the English commissioners to promote peace with France; but their efforts were ineffectual. In October 1555 he again opened parliament as Lord Chancellor, but towards the end of the month he fell ill and grew rapidly worse until he died.

Death
Bishop Gardiner died at Westminster on 12 November 1555. He was temporarily buried in a vault at the church of St Mary Overie, and in February 1556 his body was conveyed to Winchester Cathedral, where, after a number of ceremonies, a final funeral service was conducted on 28 February 1556, at which time it was recorded that he had not been buried and that no ground was broken, in the expectation that in due course his executors would build a chapel within the cathedral for his entombment. Some claim that his last words were Erravi cum Petro, sed non flevi cum Petro (Like Peter, I have erred, unlike Peter, I have not wept).

Fictional portrayals
Gardiner plays an important part in Shakespeare and Fletcher’s play Henry VIII.

Bishop Gardiner is a character in the Fifth Queen trilogy by Ford Madox Ford. Gardiner is a major character in The Path to Somerset by Janet Wertman, which centers on his rivalry with the rising Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset.

Gardiner is a prominent character in Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall, Bring Up the Bodies and The Mirror and the Light, where he appears as an implacable opponent of Thomas Cromwell. In the television adaptation Wolf Hall, Gardiner is portrayed by Mark Gatiss. In the upcoming second series, based on the third book, Alex Jennings will play Gardiner.

Gardiner is the villain in Alison MacLeod's 1965 historical novel The Heretic, a biography of the Protestant martyr Anne Askew, of whose execution Gardiner was the main instigator.

Gardiner is played by Terence Rigby in the 1998 film Elizabeth, where he is portrayed as a villainous bishop who took part in the Ridolfi plot and who vehemently opposed Elizabeth I's Act of Uniformity; in reality, Gardiner had died before Elizabeth ascended the throne. A more accurate portrayal of Gardiner can be seen in the BBC dramas The Six Wives of Henry VIII and Elizabeth R (in both of which he is played by Basil Dignam). In The Tudors television series Gardiner is played by Simon Ward.

In the 2022 Starz series Becoming Elizabeth Bishop Gardiner is portrayed by Alex Macqueen.

title: Stephen Gardiner


text:
Roxana

Roxana (dead 310 BC, Ῥωξάνη; Old Iranian: *Raṷxšnā- "shining, radiant, brilliant") sometimes known as Roxanne, Roxanna and Roxane was a Sogdian or a Bactrian princess whom Alexander the Great married after defeating Darius, ruler of the Achaemenid Empire, and invading Persia. The exact date of her birth is unknown, but she was probably in her early teens at the time of her wedding.

Biography
Roxana was born as the daughter of a Bactrian nobleman named Oxyartes, who served Bessus, the satrap of Bactria and Sogdia. He was thus probably also involved in the murder of the last Achaemenid king Darius III. After Bessus was captured by the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great, Oxyartes and his family continued to resist the Macedonians, and, along with other notables such as the Sogdian warlord Spitamenes, took up a defensive position in a fortress known as the Sogdian Rock.

They were eventually defeated by Alexander, who attended a celebration, and reportedly fell in love with Roxana on sight. The location of the celebration took place is disputed, possibly in the Sogdian Rock or another fortress of Chorienes (also called Sisimithres by Quintus Rufus Curtius), but according to the Metz Epitome it was in the house of Chorienes in which Roxana was introduced to Alexander as the daughter of Oxyartes. Curtius apparently misrepresented Roxana as a daughter of Chorienes. Arrian states that Oxyartes surrendered to Alexander when he became aware of the good reception Alexander awarded his daughter Roxana. A.B. Bosworth mentions the possibility of Roxana being captured at the Sogdian Rock, but that the two married at the fortress of Chorienes. The marriage was in 327 BC, and according to the majority of the sources it was in the Macedonian rite rather than the Persian. The sources agree that Alexander fell passionately in love with her, but considering that he had difficulties in occupying and controlling Sogdiana his decision to marry Roxana may also have been motivated by the advantages of a political alliance.

Alexander married Roxana despite opposition from his companions who would have preferred a Macedonian or other Greek to become queen. However, the marriage was also politically advantageous as it made the Sogdian army more loyal towards Alexander and less rebellious after their defeat. Alexander thereafter made an expedition into India and while there he appointed Oxyartes as the governor of the Hindu Kush region adjoining India. Roxana accompanied Alexander into India, where her first son died at or soon after birth near the banks of the Acesines River in November 326 BC.

When Alexander returned to Susa in spring 324 BC, he promoted a brother of Roxana to the elite cavalry. To encourage a better acceptance of his government among the Persians, Alexander also married Stateira II, the daughter of the deposed Persian king Darius III.

After Alexander's sudden death at Babylon in 323 BC, Roxana is believed to have murdered Stateira. According to Plutarch, she also had Stateira's sister, Drypetis, murdered with the consent of Perdiccas. Roxana was pregnant, which caused some discussions between Alexander's loyalists around Perdiccas and Ptolemy who suggested waiting to see if Alexander's posthumous child was a son and naming either a caretaker regent or a council to govern on his behalf, and the Macedonian soldiers who opposed a so-called persianization of the Macedonian court.

For the Macedonian succession a temporary compromise was found as Philip Arrhidaeus was declared king of Macedon; if the unborn child was a son, he was to become a king as well. By 317 though, Roxana's son, called Alexander IV lost his kingship as a result of intrigues started by Philip Arrhidaeus' wife, Eurydice II. Afterwards, Roxana and the young Alexander were protected by Alexander the Great's mother, Olympias, in Macedonia. Following Olympias' assassination in 316 BC, Cassander imprisoned Roxana and her son in the citadel of Amphipolis. Their detention was condemned by the Macedonian general Antigonus in 315 BC. In 311 BC, a peace treaty between Antigonus and Cassander confirmed the kingship of Alexander IV but also Cassander as his guardian, following which the Macedonians demanded his release. However, Cassander ordered Glaucias of Macedon to kill Alexander and Roxana. It is assumed that they were murdered in spring 310 BC, but their death was concealed until the summer. The two were killed after Heracles, a son of Alexander the Great's mistress Barsine, was murdered, bringing the Argead dynasty to an end.

Legacy

 * Asteroid 317 Roxane is named in her honor.

 * At the Acropolis, there were found inscriptions of offerings Roxana shall have dedicated as Alexander's wife to Athena.

 * Lucian describes a painting of Roxana's marriage to Alexander by the Greek painter Echion (also known as Aetion) which won the painter the consent of the Olympic Hellanodike Proxenidas to marry his daughter.
 * In one of the versions of the Alexander Romances, Darius III is her father and dying gives his consent to the marriage in which she wears the royal jewelry Alexander had asked for at his mother Olympias. The marriage takes then place in Darius' palace.

title: Roxana


text:
John Alcock (bishop)

John Alcock (c. 1430 – 1 October 1500) was an English churchman, bishop and Lord Chancellor.

Biography
Alcock was born at Beverley in Yorkshire, son of Sir William Alcock, Burgess of Kingston upon Hull, and was educated at Beverley Grammar School and the University of Cambridge. In 1461 he was made dean of St Stephen's Chapel, Westminster, and his subsequent promotion was rapid in both church and state. In the following year he was made Master of the Rolls, and in 1470 was sent as ambassador to the Crown Court of Castile. He was nominated to the see of Rochester on 8 January 1472, was consecrated Bishop of Rochester on 15 March and was successively translated to the see of Worcester on 15 July 1476 and the see of Ely on 6 October 1486. He was the first president of the Council of the Marches in Wales from 1473 to 1500. He twice held the office of Lord Chancellor, once from June 1475 to September 1475 and then again from October 1485 to March 1487.

Alcock was one of the leading pre-Reformation divines; he was a man of deep learning and also of great proficiency as an architect. Besides founding a charity at Beverley and endowing Hull Grammar School, he restored many churches and colleges; but his greatest achievement was the building of Jesus College, Cambridge, which he established on the site of the former Convent of St Radegund.

Alcock was appointed to the Council in 1470 and became Master of the Rolls in 1471, soon after being appointed tutor to King Edward IV's eldest son, Prince Edward. After the King's death he was with Prince Edward when he was intercepted by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, at Stony Stratford. Alcock was arrested and removed from office but soon rejoined the council. He was with King Richard III when he entered York in August 1483 and was a member of the English delegation that met the Scots at Nottingham.

Later Alcock was one of several clerics who openly canvassed the proposition that Henry Tudor marry Elizabeth of York. Appointed temporary Lord Chancellor he opened King Henry VII's first Parliament on 7 November 1485 and became one of the new king's most trusted servants.

Alcock died on 1 October 1500 and lies buried in the Alcock Chantry in Ely Cathedral.

Writings
Alcock's published writings, most of which are extremely rare, are: Mons Perfectionis, or the Hill of Perfection (London, 1497); Gallicontus Johannis Alcock episcopi Eliensis ad frates suos curatas in sinodo apud Barnwell (1498), a good specimen of early English printing and quaint illustrations; The Castle of Labour, translated from the French (1536), and various other tracts and homilies.

title: John Alcock (bishop)


text:
Talk:356 BC

Date of Alexander's birth July 21 ?? Sources: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t32.html  and http://www.infoephesus.com/templeofartemis.php

title: Talk:356 BC


text:
Robert Naunton

Sir Robert Naunton (1563 – 27 March 1635) was an English writer and politician who sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1606 and 1626.

Family
Robert Naunton was the son of Henry Naunton of Alderton, Suffolk, and Elizabeth Asheby of Hornsby, Leicestershire. According to Schreiber, the Nauntons were "established members of the county gentry and had been so for well over two centuries". Robert Naunton's grandfather, William Naunton, was trained as a lawyer and married Elizabeth Wingfield, the daughter Sir Anthony Wingfield, a trusted servant of Henry VIII. William Naunton was a Member of Parliament, and one of the principal officers of the King's brother-in-law, Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, and later of his widow, Katherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk. Robert Naunton's father, Henry, served as Master of Horse to the Dowager Duchess, while his maternal uncle, William Ashby, was a member of the diplomatic service under Queen Elizabeth.

Career
He was educated at Norwich School and Trinity College, Cambridge, becoming a fellow of his college in 1585 and public orator of the university in 1594. Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, commissioned him to spend some time abroad, sending information about European affairs. On his return, Naunton was elected Member of Parliament for Helston at a by-election in 1606. Naunton visited the court in London in October 1605. He thought that Anne of Denmark's farthingale might conceal a pregnancy, writing, "The Queen is generally held to be pregnant, but no appearance eminent by reason of the short vardugals in use".

On 7 September 1615, Naunton was knighted. In 1616, he became Master of Requests and later surveyor of the court of wards. In December 1617 his friend George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham procured for him the position of Secretary of State on the condition of his making Christopher Villiers, Buckingham's brother, his heir, and during his lifetime Villiers gained from Naunton estates worth £500 a year. In 1621 Naunton was elected MP for Cambridge University.

His strong Protestant opinions led him to favour more active intervention by England in the interests of Frederick V, Elector Palatine, and more vigorous application of the laws against Roman Catholics. Naunton was censured after the Spanish ambassador, Gondomar, complained to King James I. Consequently, in January 1623, Naunton resigned as Secretary of State and was made master of the Court of Wards and Liveries.

Sir Robert was re-elected MP for Cambridge University in 1624 and 1625. He was elected MP for Suffolk in 1626. Naunton died at Letheringham, Suffolk at the age of 71.

Marriages and issue
Naunton married secondly Penelope Perrot, widow of the astronomer Sir William Lower, and daughter of Sir Thomas Perrot and Dorothy Devereux, daughter of Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex.

Naunton's daughter Penelope married firstly Paul Bayning, 2nd Viscount Bayning (son of Paul Bayning, 1st Viscount Bayning), and secondly Philip Herbert, 5th Earl of Pembroke in his first marriage, by whom he became the grandfather of William Herbert, 6th Earl of Pembroke.

Works
Naunton's account of Queen Elizabeth's reign was still in manuscript when he died. As Fragmenta regalia, written by Sir Robert Naunton, it was printed in 1641 and again in 1642, a revised edition Fragmenta Regalia, or Observations on the late Queen Elizabeth, her Times and Favourites, being issued in 1653. It was again published in 1824, and an edition edited by Edward Arber was brought out in 1870. It has also been printed in several collections and has been translated into French and Italian. There are several manuscript copies extant, and some of Naunton's letters are in the British Museum and in other collections. A modern critical edition was prepared by J. S. Cerovski and published in 1985.

He is the source for Elizabeth's rebuke to Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester: "by God there shall be one mistress here and no master". He is also noted for his judgement of Henry VIII "He never spared a man in his anger or a woman in his lust". He was largely responsible for the claim that Sir John Perrot, his wife's grandfather, was Henry VIII's natural son.

title: Robert Naunton