Talk:Populism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:09, 2 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Populism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Populism was copied or moved into Populism in Europe with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Section sizes

Section size for Populism (48 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	5,226	5,226
Etymology and terminology	6,273	12,769
Use in academia	6,496	6,496
Ideational definition	8,042	36,351
Right and left-wing	4,941	4,941
"The people"	7,206	7,206
"The elite"	9,918	9,918
General will	3,269	3,269
Versus elitism and pluralism	2,975	2,975
Other definitions	10,668	10,668
Demand-side factors	1,288	13,583
Economic grievance	4,949	4,949
Modernisation	2,147	2,147
Cultural backlash	4,022	4,022
Recent democratization	1,177	1,177
Supply-side factors	4,590	4,590
Voluntarism	3,292	3,292
Mobilisation	2,159	26,518
Leaders	2,210	18,931
Rhetorical styles	7,866	7,866
Media	6,625	6,625
Electoral systems	2,230	2,230
Political parties	2,572	2,572
Social movements	2,856	2,856
Other themes	17	23,158
Democracy	7,337	7,337
Mainstream responses	8,514	8,514
Authoritarianism	7,290	7,290
History	3,930	50,117
Europe	45	14,367
19th and 20th centuries	5,316	5,316
21st century	9,006	9,006
North America	10,799	10,799
Latin America	4,077	4,077
Oceania	4,288	4,288
Sub-Saharan Africa	1,676	1,676
Asia and the Arab world	2,075	2,075
Late 20th- and early 21st-century growth	8,905	8,905
See also	611	611
References	18	13,396
Notes	25	25
Bibliography	13,353	13,353
Further reading	21	14,209
General	7,052	7,052
Europe	2,601	2,601
Latin America	1,218	1,218
United States	3,317	3,317
External links	649	649
Total	215,137	215,137

Potential COI Declaration

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Communitarian703 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Diversifying references

It seems 50+% of the citations seem to refer to a single book by Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser (which is itself extremely short). I noticed that somebody recently tried to change some of these citations to the original academic texts, and immediately got reverted. Having a wide range of sources is very important for verification, as well as by offering readers more directions for further research. So I think instead of shutting down such efforts, we should try and diversify the citations. Most the information in the aforementioned book is taken from existing research, so this should not be too hard. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im surprised this hasn't gotten more attention, the amount of references to that book almost reads as an advert Johannes.Dickenson (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming section ‘mobilization’ to ‘supply-side mobilization’.

The terms ‘supply-side’ and ‘demand-side’ are used in the literature to refer to the mobilisation of populism by elite (leaders) and mass-level (supporters) actors, respectively (see for example Mudde, 2007). I suggest renaming the section so as to (1) be more accurate; and (2) allow the creation of a section for demand-side mobilization. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of edits

@Beyond My Ken: Why have you reversed good faith edits without any explanation? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you made extensive changes with no consensus to do so. Please see WP:BRD - you made a Bold edit, I Reverted it, now please Discuss your proposed changes here before making the changes. Re-inserting the information is not the proper next step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm talking of the reversal of edits by User:Meininger22. These do not strike to me as particularly bold, and many more bold edits have been done without discussion, as clear from the mostly empty talk page. It seems like WP:BITE to me, is all Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially useful source

This 2019 secondary source "Political Theory of Populism" (open access) might be useful in improving this article. Elysia (AR) (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mudde and Kaltwasser

The words "Mudde" and "Kaltwasser" have been used 214 and 203 times in the article, respectively (plus one "Kaltwaasser"). This catastrophic over-reliance is probably unique throughout the whole WP in all languages and timespans. I suspect it has reached the point of copyright violation in a handful of cases.

Bad wiki

This whole page reads like a 60 year old Conservative wrote it, it's not very impartial. It describes every trait of populist thought as a generally disproven theory, not as an actual political movement/ideology. A Conservative Saudi (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include definition(s) in the lead

Since the definition of the term "Populism" has been recently challenged, I think it makes sense to at least include it's original (post party) and most durable definition (and perhaps other, more recent attempts to extend or invert the definition). [1] Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism and revisionism

Dear editors, if you'd like to get a feel for how recent world events have dragged the term "populism" around, just look at this revision of this article [2].

(I had vague recollection of editing this article before and found this revision which I touched back in 2014.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest: Should the infobox of Sinn Féin list Left-wing populism as one of its ideologies?

A request for comment is taking place at Talk:Sinn Féin#RfC: Should the infobox of Sinn Féin list Left-wing populism as one of its ideologies? that may be of interest to watchers of this article. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economic cost

"We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high." [3] Benjamin (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claim

populist figures like Italy's Beppe Grillo have been characterised as centrist and liberal

This is an extraordinary claim. Populism is not characterized by centrism, and looking at Grillo's biography page on Wikipedia, I don't see anything reflective of centrism. I believe the term may be used differently here and the sentence itself should be deleted as misleading. The secondary sources do not support the idea that Grillo is a centrist. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much too long

WP:TOOBIG See the word guideline. This article has over 15K words. Anna (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

I think there should be a section on the impact of populism Kowal2701 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Talk header}}
+{{American English}}
-{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society and social sciences |class=C}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
-{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|social=yes|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High}}
-{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Philosophy|social=yes|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}}
 }}
+{{Copied|from=Populism|from_oldid=974233220|to=Populism in Europe|to_diff=974410583}}
-{{Archive box|[[talk:Populism/Archive_1|Archive 1: Up to February 2009]]}}
+{{Section sizes}}
-== FA Track ==
+== Potential COI Declaration ==
+{{Connected contributor|User1=Communitarian703 |U1-declared=yes| This user is an employee of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies.}}
-This article has made tremendous advances since I made comments above (as 72.228.150.44 , 108.183.102.223 ). IMO should be on some kind of track to get higher visibility as a public service. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 21:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
-:Thank for your kind words regarding the project of improvement, [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]]. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 22:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
+== Diversifying references ==
-== Europe populistic parties ==
+It seems 50+% of the citations seem to refer to a single book by Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser (which is itself extremely short). I noticed that somebody recently tried to change some of these citations to the original academic texts, and immediately got reverted. Having a wide range of sources is very important for verification, as well as by offering readers more directions for further research. So I think instead of shutting down such efforts, we should try and diversify the citations. Most the information in the aforementioned book is taken from existing research, so this should not be too hard. [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 09:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
-I would like to add the section "Europe populistic parties" and covering there all populistic parties:
-* AfD Germany
-* SVP Switzerland
-* FN France
-* UKIP UK
-* FPO Austria
-* Fisdesu Hungary
-* PiS Poland
-* etc.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:0e7s|0e7s]] ([[User talk:0e7s#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/0e7s|contribs]]) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:Im surprised this hasn't gotten more attention, the amount of references to that book almost reads as an advert  [[User:Johannes.Dickenson|Johannes.Dickenson]] ([[User talk:Johannes.Dickenson|talk]]) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
-== Sloppy article with no mention of Julius Caesar and the Populares in the history of populism ==
+== Renaming section ‘mobilization’ to ‘supply-side mobilization’. ==
-This article is sloppy and its history section begins with saying that "populism" emerged as a term in the 19th century in reference to some Russian political party. That sounds ridiculous, I imagine it arose earlier than that. However there is no serious investigation into its early history in this article. One prominent ancient populist movement was the Populares in the Roman Republic supporting expanded rights for the common people (those without aristocratic title) that were in conflict with the Optimates - an elitist party seeking to secure the powers of Roman aristocrats and opposed the Populares' populist efforts to expand the powers of the commoners.
+The terms ‘supply-side’ and ‘demand-side’ are used in the literature to refer to the mobilisation of populism by elite (leaders) and mass-level (supporters) actors, respectively (see for example Mudde, 2007). I suggest renaming the section so as to (1) be more accurate; and (2) allow the creation of a section for demand-side mobilization. [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 10:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
-Roman Dictator Julius Caesar was a Populare and is perhaps the most famous populist politician in history, the fact that Caesar and the Populares are addressed nowhere in this article is astounding and shows how badly done this article is.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.54.139.194|70.54.139.194]] ([[User talk:70.54.139.194#top|talk]]) 06:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Reversal of edits ==
-:The question is, does the main academic literature on "populism" link the concept to the ancient Populares of the Roman Empire? If not, then neither would we. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 11:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
+{{replyto|Beyond My Ken}} Why have you reversed good faith edits without any explanation? [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 06:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
-::''The Oxford Handbook of Populism'' describes the ''Populares'' as follows: "we might locate the origins of populism with the ''populares'', Senators of the late Roman Republic who, in contrast to the conservative ''optimates'' claimed to speak for the plebs", it goes on to say later "it is worth observing that efforts to extend the scope of Roman citizenship were constantly the work of the ''populares''. From a patrician perspective, this may have been a cynical ploy to increase the populists' base of support,". The book says that the contempory conception of populist politics is more recent from the 19th century onward, however as quoted above it recognizes the Roman ''Populares'' as an early representation of populist politics. So yes the 19th century is where the contemporary conception of populism was formulated, however earlier populist politics did exist with the ''Populares'' being an example and this should be noted in the article.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.159.46.212|69.159.46.212]] ([[User talk:69.159.46.212#top|talk]]) 19:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:Because you made extensive changes with no consensus to do so.  Please see [[WP:BRD]] - you made a '''B'''old edit, I '''R'''everted it, now please '''D'''iscuss your proposed changes here before making the changes. Re-inserting the information is not the proper next step. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
-:::I agree, not having [[populares]] is massive let down of this article.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
+:: To be clear, I'm talking of the reversal of edits by [[User:Meininger22]]. These do not strike to me as particularly bold, and many more bold edits have been done without discussion, as clear from the mostly empty talk page. It seems like [[WP:BITE]] to me, is all [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 07:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
+== Potentially useful source ==
-The first thing that came to my mind: the populist Roman tribunes. [[User:Zezen|Zezen]] ([[User talk:Zezen|talk]])
+This 2019 secondary source [https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-070753 "Political Theory of Populism"] (open access) might be useful in improving this article. [[User:Elysia (AR)|Elysia (AR)]] ([[User talk:Elysia (AR)|talk]]) 16:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
-== Mounk and Kyle: 46 populist leaders since 1990 ==
+== Mudde and Kaltwasser ==
-This article[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/hard-data-populism-bolsonaro-trump/578878/] may be of interest to you all. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 12:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
+The words "Mudde" and "Kaltwasser" have been used 214 and 203 times in the article, respectively (plus one "Kaltwaasser"). This catastrophic over-reliance is probably unique throughout the whole WP in all languages and timespans. I suspect it has reached the point of copyright violation in a handful of cases.
-== Really? ==
+== Bad wiki ==
-"In 2010s the United Kingdom politics was shocked by..."  What does it mean for "politics" to be shocked by anything?  And the person making this fatuous claim like to justify it? [[Special:Contributions/31.48.245.103|31.48.245.103]] ([[User talk:31.48.245.103|talk]]) 16:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC);
+This whole page reads like a 60 year old Conservative wrote it, it's not very impartial. It describes every trait of populist thought as a generally disproven theory, not as an actual political movement/ideology. [[User:A Conservative Saudi|A Conservative Saudi]] ([[User talk:A Conservative Saudi|talk]]) 19:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
-== Populism is normal politics. ==
+== Include definition(s) in the lead ==
-There is something strange going on with the word "Populism". In this article it is falsely defined as: "Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to the people". This is a strange definition because as far as I know this is a "technique" practiced by all politician and political parties that strife to be popular with more than only some marginal groups. And why not, democracy has everything to do with the will of the people and should have nothing to do with politicians ignoring people and implementing their own hobbyhorses. So "populism" is nothing but democracy in its purest form, and should be defined as common practice. However, politicians and political parties that already belong to the status quo tend to '''mis'''use this term against newcomers that criticize them for not really listening to the people. With this they try to suggest that the newcomer is opportunistic and lacks idealism. And finding the false definition of this term in this Wikipedia only proves that they have succeeded with many of you all. Or maybe the majority of Wikipedia moderators are just voters for the status quo, a status quõ that is not really interested in the will of the people.[[Special:Contributions/83.98.229.18|83.98.229.18]] ([[User talk:83.98.229.18|talk]])
-:Please read [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. Wikipedia exists to summarize what published Reliable Sources say. It doesn't exist as a vehicle for your, mine, or anyone else's original thoughts and theories about what words ''should really mean''. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
+Since the definition of the term "Populism" has been recently challenged, I think it makes sense to at least include it's original (post party) and most durable definition (and perhaps other, more recent attempts to extend or invert the definition). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Populism&diff=next&oldid=1051552599] <b>[[User:Sparkie82|<span style="color: #333333">Sparkie82</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Sparkie82|<span style="color: #666666">t</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sparkie82|<span style="color: #666666">c</span>]])</b> 09:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
-== Over reliance in Article on Mudde & Kaltwasser? ==
+== Recentism and revisionism ==
-Looking through the sources cited on this page, I'm almost wondering if there's an over-reliance on Mudde & Kaltwasser's Populism: A Very Short Introduction? I'm by no means a scholar on Populism, and legitimately am not aware of whether this is universally considered an accurate guide to populism, however the fact that the book appears as, by far, the most cited source seems sketchy to me (by first impressions). Surely, Mudde & Kaltwasser's conclusions must have come from actual, peer-reviewed scholarly work? If so, it might be more appropriate to find these sources, rather than having such a heavy reliance on the one book.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/147.153.93.67|147.153.93.67]] ([[User talk:147.153.93.67#top|talk]]) 00:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:It's definitely worth adding more material from other peer-reviewed sources, that's for sure. But there's no reason to remove anything cited to Mudde and Kaltwasser (not that you're claiming that). Using the academic textbooks as a base is always a good idea. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 20:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
+Dear editors, if you'd like to get a feel for how recent world events have dragged the term "populism" around, just look at this revision of this article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Populism&diff=prev&oldid=630053273].
-== History section first paragraph ==
+(I had vague recollection of editing this article before and found this revision which I touched back in 2014.) <b>[[User:Sparkie82|<span style="color: #333333">Sparkie82</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Sparkie82|<span style="color: #666666">t</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sparkie82|<span style="color: #666666">c</span>]])</b> 09:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
-"Scholars who have studied populism agree that it is a modern phenomenon.[147] Its origins are often traced to the late nineteenth century, when a populist movement arose in the United States and another different kind of movement, but with a name frequently translated as "populist" in the Russian Empire[147] Populism has often been linked to the spread of democracy, both as an idea and as a framework for governance.[147]" I want to challenge this false claim.
+== RfC of interest: Should the infobox of Sinn Féin list Left-wing populism as one of its ideologies? ==
-https://history.cornell.edu/news/historian-offers-lessons-antiquity-today%25E2%2580%2599s-democracy - mentions populares and  fifth-century B.C. Athens
+[[File:Simple Attention.svg|40px]]  A request for comment is taking place at [[Talk:Sinn Féin#RfC: Should the infobox of Sinn Féin list Left-wing populism as one of its ideologies?]] that may be of interest to watchers of this article. [[User:CeltBrowne|CeltBrowne]] ([[User talk:CeltBrowne|talk]]) 21:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
-https://www.21global.ucsb.edu/global-e/may-2018/populism-and-politically-excluded-lessons-ancient-rome - ...populism cannot be defined as a challenge to liberal democracies since populism has been around a very long time, predating liberal democracies by many centuries.
+== Economic cost ==
-https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-rome-populist_b_9659660 - even huffpost
-Plenty of sources saying populares are indeed populist, there are sources that go further into Greek democracy, something to be looked at.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 15:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
+"We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high." [https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20202045&from=f] [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 12:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
-:These are all web sources; do we have any explicitly academic, peer-reviewed sources making this same case? If we do, then I'd be very much in support for including this argument within the article. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
-::Don't we just need RS? Isn't professor on university great starting point?[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 15:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::True, and I certainly don't mean to say that we can't use these sources. But I'm hoping that there might be better sourcing out there (i.e. something that these professors have actually written and published in peer-reviewed journals) which we can use instead (or as well as). [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::I will remove incorrect information, add just short sentence with source and put expand section template so editors know where to start from.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 16:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::I don't think that it's appropriate to just remove information you disagree with, Sourcerery. At the end of the day, lots of scholars working on populism see it as a fundamentally modern phenomenon. What we can do is add a few sentences saying that some historians argue that the concept has parallels with certain ancient political stances. That way we explain both POVs, rather than just pushing one as if it were automatically true and the other false. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 20:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::::But it's wrong? Go on [[Pericles]] which is featured article and see how much time he is called populist, and how many sources are quoted.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 20:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::It's not for us to make the judgement as to what is right or wrong. We report what the Reliable Sources say. Some historians might call Pericles a "populist", but the question is what they mean by it, and is it the same thing that political scientists mean when they talk about "populism"? Sometimes the same word can be used to mean different things by different people operating in different fields: take "phenomenology", for example. We must be careful not to conflate and confuse these divergent uses, and we definitely shouldn't be claiming that ancient authors called Pericles a "populist" when the word and concept (as we not use it) did not even exist back then. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 23:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::Well reliable sources say he is populist, why did you delete it? And one of translators is [[Sarah Ruden]], I think we will have to go with what she says.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 09:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::You are using [[WP:Primary sources]] as the basis of your argument here. Can you provide Reliable Sources, ideally from peer-reviewed academic publications, that explicitly refer to Pericles as a "populist" in the sense that this article is discussing? If you can then I would be more than happy to see that incorporated into the article. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 12:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::::I already did give RS and you deleted them. https://web.archive.org/web/20110414112851/http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/2055/l23anc.htm#. [[Sarah Ruden]] Lysistrata, 80. I would also like to point out that you don't have consensus for inclusion of inaccurate section in History and concerns have been raised for lack of inclusion of populares and you ignored them.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 12:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::::From what I can see, you are posting a dead link. As I said, if you can provide RS that testify to the argument that Pericles should be conceived as a populist then I'd be more than happy to integrate those into the article. Aside from the link which does not even seem to work, what you are posting are references to Classical texts accompanied with claims that they demonstrate that Pericles was a "populist" in the sense used by modern political scientists. They do not. 12:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::::::Link works well and he is explicitly called populist.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 12:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-== Request for comment ==
+== Extraordinary claim ==
-<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box
-  | title =
-  | title_bg = #C3C3C3
-  | title_fnt = #000
-  | quote = Closing this RfC without action. There is no prejudice against creating a new RfC that is neutral and poses a specific question or questions.<p>[[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
-  | width = 30%|halign=left}}
-:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
-----
-There is heavy reliance on source that is verifiably false (Mudde & Kaltwasser 2017, "Populism: A Very Short Introduction", name implies it doesn't cover entire topic). Request for comment on history section (see talk page), article as whole and source itself.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 10:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
+:{{tq|populist figures like Italy's Beppe Grillo have been characterised as centrist and liberal}}
-:No reliable evidence is given for the claim that ''Populism: A Very Short Introduction'' is "verifiably false". The book, published by Oxford University Press in 2017, is written by two established political scientists ([[Cas Mudde]] and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser) who have published extensively on the topic of populism. They are experts on the subject. The article does presently rely too heavily on this particular book but that can (and will) be remedied by the citation of a broader range of peer-reviewed sources. As previous Talk Page discussions show, Sourcery's objection to the use of the book stems primarily from his or her commitment to the belief that Pericles and various ancient Graeco-Roman figures can be called "populist", which contrasts with Mudde and Kaltwasser's argument that populism should be seen as a fundamentally modern phenomenon. Sourcery has yet to present peer-reviewed sources written by political scientists that share their opinion that the concept of "populism" is applicable to various pre-modern societies: that is not to say, however, that such sources do not exist. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 12:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
+This is an extraordinary claim.  Populism is not characterized by centrism, and looking at Grillo's biography page on Wikipedia, I don't see anything reflective of centrism.  I believe the term may be used differently here and the sentence itself should be deleted as misleading. The secondary sources do not support the idea that Grillo is a centrist. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
-::Yes it was given, history is written by historians not political scientist.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 12:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::Well, you have also yet to provide peer-reviewed high quality sources produced by historians which make the argument that Pericles and other Graeco-Roman figures could be construed as "populists" in the modern sense. All you have provided to make your case are references to Graeco-Roman texts themselves (Primary Sources) and a couple of web sources, one of which appears to be a dead link. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 12:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::That is not true, link is working, and it's modern translation from expert in field. All you have provided is one inaccurate source which now has to be questioned because it can't even get basics right.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 12:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::[http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/2055/l23anc.htm The original link] is dead; the [https://web.archive.org/web/20110414112851/http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/2055/l23anc.htm# Web Archive version] that you posted also does not work for me; perhaps others will have better luck. Either way, it doesn't look like a highly quality peer-reviewed source. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 13:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::Well it works for me and it's RS. As is [[Sarah Ruden]] translation of Lysistrata, 80. I would also point out that  [[Barry S. Strauss]] notes example of the fifth-century B.C, period in which Pericles lived entirely. I would also point it that you have not provided good reason for still having inaccurate information in article from  Mudde and Kaltwasser's "Very Short Introduction", emphasis on the title. Now I'm thinking about Unreliable source tag, what kinda "high quality, peer-reviewed" source can't even get the basics right?[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 13:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::That a core textbook on the topic of populism written by two well-respected professional experts on the subject is incorrect is your personal opinion. It is not fact. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::I'm afraid it's in serious jeopardy if it contradicts historians, and it does.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 14:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::::No, it doesn't. At least, not inherently. In political science, the term "populism" has come to mean a certain phenomenon that political scientists associate primarily (if not exclusively) with modernity. The term has also come to be used in other ways by other people, including by a handful of historians, some of whom have used it in reference to phenomenon in the past; they don't necessarily mean the same thing by it. It's fine for the article to make this clear, but it doesn't mean we disregard the political scientists as being "wrong". [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 14:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Yes it does, these are historians of today. They are comparing it with phenomenons of today, notably Donald Trump. You are worrying me now, did you even read source that you have put in the article, one regarding populares and 5th century BC?[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 14:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::::::Of course I read it. But all it represents is a single web article summarising what one historian (Strauss) said in one lecture. It's not even written by the historian in question himself, let alone published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed manner. Moreover, from the article it's not even completely clear that Strauss was actually claiming that the ancient ''[[populares]]'' were "populist": it is possible that he was simply comparing them to modern populists and drawing lessons from that comparison. (Although the title of his lecture does suggest that he was using the term "populism" for these ancient movements too). Either way, it's not a strong enough source to warrant us literally deleting claims made by some of the foremost experts of populism from this article. That's just fringe POV-pushing. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 15:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::But why did you say it's focus is solely on history and has different definition than populism today when he draws clear parallels? quote: "some of whom have used it in reference to phenomenon in the past; they don't necessarily mean the same thing by it". And what about other sources I have given you multiple times, Prof. Steven Muhlberger Periclean Athens, [[Sarah Ruden]] Lysistrata? How exactly is that single source and fringe POV-pushing?[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-::::the populism article is about movements of large numbers of people organized together in the political arena, including coverage of their leaders. Pericles did have a rhetorical style and policy programs that resemble some instances of modern populism, but he did not attempt to build an organized movement of the sort we are primarily concerned with. Organized grassroots movements are a phenomena that require a democratic popular base, which you have after the French and American revolutions. For my own work on American populism in the late 19th century no participant or historian ever mentioned the ancient Greeks or Romans. indeed, I think none of them ever heard of Pericles, who is not taught in the sort of neighborhood elementary schools they attended. so I think oh we need is a footnote mentioning a resemblance to Pericles. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
-*This RFC isn't neutrally-worded (it calls the source "verifiably false", which appears to be the point of contention), but beyond that, as near as I can tell, you're asking if a source can be excluded because it has "A Very Short Introduction" in the title.  The answer to that is obviously no (such titles are frequently rhetorical, and in any case shortness isn't a reason to exclude a source.)  Also, political scientists seem like reasonable sources on populism as a concept.  As Midnightblueowl implied above, rather than trying to dispute this source yourself, your time would probably be better-spent looking for sources discussing populism in the ancient world (I think there's a lot more to say about the evolution of populism as both a concept and a term, but that doesn't mean this source needs to be ''excluded''.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
-:*In this case, the subtitle of ''A Very Short Introduction'' is also the name of the Oxford University Press series in which Mudde and Kaltwasser's book is published. Indeed, it is included as the subtitle of every volume in that series. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 22:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
-* Agree with Aquillion, this RFC is not neutral and there must be other sources out there that follow this topic. The source shouldn’t be removed, but it could be backed up with another source. [[User:Baseballdad|Baseballdad]] ([[User talk:Baseballdad|talk]]) 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
-* Also agree with Aquillion. The RfC is not neutral and does not answer a sufficiently specific question for any of us to contribute constructively. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 12:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
-*Keep the 2017 book, delete Sourcerery. Sourcerery points to a [https://web.archive.org/web/20110414112851/http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/2055/l23anc.htm# circa 1998 university webhost] from Professor Steve Muhlberger's HIST 2055 class notes at [[Nipissing University]]. There's no way I'm going to accept that nonsense as a source to impeach the book published by [[Oxford University Press]]. <small>([[WP:Feedback request service|Summoned by bot]])</small> <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 14:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
-* It seems to me that this whole RfC is just about one user who is trying to push a view that is at best an interesting thought experiment by an academic trying to find parallels between the modern and the ancient world and at worst a fringe view. Sourcerery is trying to establish this view as the obvious correct take on the meaning of Populism, while discarding other views by established experts as "wrong" and the arguments for doing so are pretty weak. Saying that a book written entirely about the topic by two experts in the field and published by the Oxford University Press is unreliable because the title claims it's a "very short introduction" is laughable. Mate, that's the name of the series and it's been around forever - [[Very Short Introductions]]. Perhaps no other word with its origins in political science has been more abused in the last decade than populism, with commentators trying to both restrict or widen the meaning to fit their interests, usually by claiming that it only applies to "the other side". Now we have to deal with these sort of fringe takes that are trying to redefine the term on a historical basis. [[User:PraiseVivec|PraiseVivec]] ([[User talk:PraiseVivec|talk]]) 14:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
-* Truth, in general is not a criterion, here or virtually anywhere else outside of scientific and scholarly endeavor. Specifically, the criteria here are explicitly acceptable support which doesn't mean facts/truth, and implicitly community acceptability and/or apathy.[[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 15:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
-----
-: ''The discussion above is closed.  <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
-== Request for comment ==
+==The article is much too long==
+[[WP:TOOBIG]] See the word guideline. This article has over 15K words. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">[[User:Anna Roy|Anna]] ([[User talk:Anna Roy|talk]])</span> 21:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
+== Impact ==
-{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=C6F657B}}
-Should we go with political scientist opinion or historians opinion on History of Populism? Main contention is claim that populism didn't exist before 19th century.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 11:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
+I think there should be a section on the impact of populism [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Comment:''' Anyone considering contributing to this RfC should probably consult the recent RfC on the same subject and the Talk Page discussions which preceded it. This is part of a wider attempt by Sourcery to present populism as a phenomenon present in the ancient world, a viewpoint that is not really supported by any Reliable Sources thus far presented. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
-::It is and we already have multiple sources supporting that view, unlike only one so far in article supporting that there isn't. This is another attempt by Midnightblueowl to misrepresent issue and push his POV.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 11:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' Both of you please avoid commenting on each other. Let's stick to the content issue. It would be helpful to create an area on this page showing the sources we have. Not weaved into another discussion; just a straight list. That would make it easier for outsiders to comment on whether or not they are reliable and what they show.[[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 12:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
-:*I agree. Nobody is suggesting that historians' views should be excluded from this article. What is in doubt is the reliability of the two sources that Sourcery has actually provided; one a translation of a primary source in which a Latin or Ancient Greek term is glossed with "populist" by the translator; and the other a website they have found in which a Classicist compares certain ancient politicians with modern populists. Not top quality sources. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
-:*Translator in question is [[Sarah Ruden]] (Harvard University, Ph.D. (Classical Philology)). There are four sources already in article disapproving claim populism didn't exist before 19th century in [[Populism#History]].[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 18:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-:::Think it's a relly bad form to add and alter History section while RFC is in progress, but midnightblueowl decided to go for it.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-::::I added material cited to ''The Oxford Handbook of Populism'', a very high quality source. Not exactly bad form. Anyway, Sourcerery, one thing I would stress is that neither I nor (as far as I can tell) anyone else actually opposes citing historians in the article. The issue at hand is the ''quality'' of the sources you have thus provided and whether they carry sufficient weight to literally overturn what the vast majority of scholars say (that populism is fundamentally a modern phenomenon linked to the growth of democracy). It's up to you, but I would recommend terminating this RfC and rephrasing it to specifically ask editors whether sources like Ruden's translation or the web article about Strauss should be used in this article. That's the real nub of the matter. Because as far as I can see, everyone posting here is going to say "yes, use both historians and political scientists", but that's not really what we actually disagree on. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 21:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Both.''' Assuming they are reliably sourced, there is no reason why either political scientists' or historians' views should be favored. If there's a split between them, then the split should be noted. [[User:Ahrtoodeetoo|R2]] <small>([[User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo|bleep]])</small> 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Both''' – provided that any given source in question is reliable, perspectives from multiple fields are necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
-== Sourcery's edit warring ==
-[[User:Sourcerery]], please stop edit warring to force a "populism" infobox into the article. It's utterly superfluous and makes the lede look cluttered and messy. There's a reason infoboxes are rarely if ever found in FA-rated articles. If you want an infobox, argue your case here and try to gain consensus. I can see from your Talk Page that you've been warned about edit warring at other articles on several occasions before, including very recently. The appropriate course of action would now be for you to undo your addition and seek a Talk Page consensus for your desired change. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-:[[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] You need consensus, not me. What I am doing is widely accepted practice if not rule, so what you want is exception. Discuss issues at talk page.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 19:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-::"You need consensus, not me." No, that's not how it works. You are adding a box to the lede, not me. Please read [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]]. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-:::Yes it is, it is widely accepted on all political pages and kinda rule. What you want is exception.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 19:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-::::Not a single one of which is either GA or FA rated. Using articles that are of a generally poor quality as a benchmark with which to aspire is not good practice. Regardless of which, you do not have consensus for the addition and are clearly editing tendentiously, which you were warned about over at ANI ''only yesterday''. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-:::::Is it a rule or not?[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-::::::No, it is not. Most emphatically it is not. Some editors like the boxes, hence they go around making them and slapping them on many different articles, but more broadly the boxes are quite unpopular and that's why you'll rarely if ever find them on articles that actually reach the status of "Featured article". Boxes that sit at the bottom of the articles, which are obviously far less intrusive, are generally favoured. Please, Sourcerery, I know that you're new(ish) and still learning the ropes here at Wikipedia, but this is an example where you really should revert your addition and seek consensus. If you repeatedly edit tendentiously you'll only find yourself getting banned in the end and I don't think you want that. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::What? I don't think that's true, I'm pretty sure I have read somewhere that we must have those boxes when they exist, especially ones that are directly linked to article itself. Maybe you are right, but I find it hard to trust you because of conduct and behavior you displayed on this topic, you can remove it but if I find it's rule it's coming right back.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 19:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::Thank you for being willing to allow its removal. I've been here for well over a decade and have brought over 25 articles to Featured Article status, so I'm an old timer when it comes to Wikipedia. Trust me when I say that it's not a rule. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-:::::::::If you're keen on bars, have you considered making one on populism that would instead go at the bottom of the page? I would be very supportive of such an addition should you decide to make one. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
-::::::::::I will consider that, it's a good suggestion.[[User:Sourcerery|Sourcerery]] ([[User talk:Sourcerery|talk]]) 19:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)