Talk:Right-wing populism

There is no such thing as Right-Wing populism

Right-wing politics are elitist by definition, and populism is anti-elitist by definition. The idea that there can be a Right-wing populism is nonsense. When we label something as Right-Wing Populism we are mis-labelling it; it cannot be both elitist and anti-elitist.

The use of the term Right-Wing has become so mixed up that discussion of it is becoming impossible. LeapUK (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

whose definition is that?? Better read: 1) Rydgren, Jens. Movements of exclusion: Radical right-wing populism in the Western world (2005); 2) Harrison, Trevor. Of passionate intensity: right-wing populism and the Reform Party of Canada ( U of Toronto Press, 1995); 3) Wodak, Ruth. Right-wing populism in Europe: politics and discourse (2013); 4) Judis, John B. "Right-Wing Populism Could Hobble America for Decades." New Republic (2013); 5) Hogan, Jackie, and Kristin Haltinner. "Floods, Invaders, and Parasites: Immigration Threat Narratives and Right-Wing Populism in the USA, UK and Australia." Journal of Intercultural Studies 36.5 (2015): 520-543. Rjensen (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That is an etymological fallacy. One could argue they are not right wing and not populist but that is what they are called. TFD (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what the RS say. If the RS say they are right wing populists we report that--we do not argue with the RS. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing politics aren't innately elitist. They all have a strong focus on "our" group to the exclusion of others, and they tend to favour the rich, but the groups aren't always defined in socioeconomic status. Right-wing populism is just the harnessing of anti-elitist sentiment to promote conservative or nationalist policy. The broader goals don't actually need to make sense, they just need to feel good. e.g.: "The rich inner city elite want to take your hard earned tax dollars;" sounds good and aggravating but makes no sense as the rich inner city elite tend to benefit the most from tax cuts. - MVHVTMV (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote: — "Right-wing politics are elitist by definition, and populism is anti-elitist by definition."

From the U.S.A.'s perspective, speaking economically, traditionally that seems true, the RW do the bidding of the 0.01%, and even the top 1% to a much lower extent. However, the RichBoy-caused Great Recession's massive payoffs etc caused a schism in traditional Right-wing politics and economic rhetoric that has not settled (because the norm could be returning as memories fade). (It's now permissible for some Right Wingers to enthusiastically disparage the RichBoys.) So if the situation is unsettled, but perhaps united by temporary personality cult or fears, this re-categorization is premature. There are huge vested interests in blurred memories preventing a permanently fractured Right Wing.

Please, sign your posts. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Religious reason and prohibitions behind Right-wing politics

I am trying to determine the underlying causes for the re-emergence of ultra-conservative right-wing movements, especially across Europe following the Austerity decades of the early 20th century. This may perhaps also inform the political philosophy behind many other profoundly religious and dictatorial-military regimes.

To that end I have started a draft document user-page here > User:Timpo/Religious_reason_and_prohibitions_in_Right-wing_politics with a section concentrating on Religion as a successful survival strategy. Please feel free to add your comments and contributions to the talk page Regards, Timpo (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

See also section

Beyond My Ken I do not see why would they be interested in something that is solely related to right-wing politics not to right-wing populism. If this was right-wing article I would understand your objection but since it's not I don't. Polyison (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Use a broader brush. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen the reason to list a topic under see also when it is already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be the norm to remove items from the 'see also' if they are mentioned in the body. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. This is also what WP:See also suggests. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The See Also list includes topics not really related to right-wing populism, like Christian Right or Dark Enlightenment, unless you consider listing subjects which are on the right, and not specifically the populist right. Azerty82 (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Bannon quote

Beyond My Ken made what might be a POINTY edit which added a Bannon quote to the article.[[1]] This content has been disputed and largely rejected at the parent article. [[2]] The problems raised at the other article also apply here. Springee (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The implication of what Bannon said is that right-wing populism is racist. While that's fine in an op-ed, Wikipedia articles should never imply anything but present the opinions and conclusions in reliable sources. Quotes of this nature should only be used if they are mentioned in secondary sources. For example, a paper might have used this quote as evidence of racism. And if someone wants to make the argument that we are not implying they are racist, merely providing a quote and letting the reader decide, that's not what articles should do. We should present the various opinions in accordance with their acceptance and tell readers how writers developed these opinions and how accepted they are. As it is, we don't explain what if any connection Bannon has to rw populism, why he is addressing the FN and whether the FN is representative of or even part of rw populism. Note for example that the FN developed out of fascism, which was racist, as did a few other rw populist parties, but there are others that have no connection with historical fascism. So it is unclear what racism has to do with rw populism. TFD (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Not pointy at all, absolutely pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added two more sources which confirm Bannon's list of attributes of right-wing populism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

What you did was Synth. The Bannon source wasn't saying right wing polulism is racist etc. You have linked his comments to the new sources inappropriately. You have assigned them meaning they never had. Springee (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The way the Bannon quote is tied to the other material doesn't even make logical sense. Your text says "This list of attributes [the items Bannon mentioned] is confirmed by... [second source]". Yet the second source predates the Bannon quote. It also fails since Bannon is saying, in effect, "the abusive left will call you ...". It is clear from the source Bannon isn't saying "the right is...". Currently there is no consensus for inclusion. Per ONUS I'm removing the paragraph. Springee (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, do you think it’s wise to restore your controversial edit given that others oppose it and only you support it? Springee (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The onyl valid argument presented on Talk:Right-wing politics for not including the Bannon material was that it did not represent the broad scope of right-wing politics. That arguemnt is no applicable here, since Bannon was talking about right-wing populism to a group of right-wing populists who are members of one of Europe's biggest right-wing populist parties. Given that, the material is absolutely pertinent to this article, and, because it has been supported by citations from two impeachable reliable academic sources, your removal of it without consensus to do so was incorrect. I have re-crafted the material to integrate it into the article better, and to connects the supporting sources to the Bannon quote. There may be more that can be done in that direction, but removal of the matyerial wholesale, with the supporting academic sources, is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• With those sources, this seems like relevant material which should be included. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

With a nod to the new material BMK added I’ve only removed the Bannon quote. It’s context is being misrepresented and the was it is being linked is Synthesis. The material is also undue as it’s not a broader picture definition of right wing populism. Given this is new material, has been challenged and no consensus exists it should not be restored until consensus is reached here first. Perhaps a RfC regarding the use of the Bannon quote in the paragraph could settle the matter. Springee (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you have claimed there was consensus for the use of the Bannon quote and that was your justification for restoring newly added material that was rejected. Please show that consensus. [[3]] Springee (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted, and cite ONUS for doing so. BMK, you regularly get yourself in hot water for your editing attitude on political articles. It wasn't so long ago that you were at AN/I for having an obsession with the size of portraits of Nazi's in en.wiki articles and for disruptively edit-warring across numerous articles in relation to that (I'll find the thread). I would argue that Bannon's views are relevant on the populism side of things, he's widely cited as a "right-wing" or "far-right" populist. What material to use, and why, is for (scholarly) sources to decide. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is the thread, I'd forgotten just how much trouble that had caused. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, this quote has no purpose in this article. It gives no information about right wing populism. I oppose the quote being included, to both this article and right wing politics. Why are you so dedicated to having this quote on wiki anyway, Ken? Victor Salvini (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

IT GIVES NO INFORMATION ON RIGHT-WING POPULISM!!! A right-wing mastermind tells the National Front that when they're called xenophobes, nativist, and racists -- which they will be bbecause they are xenopboes, nativist and racists -- theyshould "wear it as a badge of honor. Time is on our side. Victory will be ours" you think that those remarks say nothing about right-wing populism?? What world are you living in, man? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, your attempts to keep the out of context quote in the article are showing that you aren't listening. The quote is disputed. Both Victor Salvini and Mr rnddude have made this clear. At this point you should understand at this point the discussion needs to move to talk before any restoration. Discuss why you think it's ok here or additional intervention may be needed. Springee (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• I second third fourth fifth? this point. BMK, this is inappropriate and you should know better given your history on in political articles. Please stop. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There hasn’t been any new posts here for hours. I’m posting this asking if we have a consensus to remove the quote here as well, since Ken seems to be the only person in favor of it. Victor Salvini (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that this point we have a clear consensus for removal but since this was newly added material that is more than we need. Per WP:NOCON (policy):

n discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

Thus, per policy the bar is consensus for inclusion, not consensus for removal. Springee (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Bannon material

Should the following material be included in the "France" subsection of this article, which focuses exclusively on the French right-wing populist National Front (NF) party? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

When the party was at a low point because of Le Pen's disappointing result in the presidential election and concerns about her ability to govern the party Steve Bannon, former advisor to Donald Trump before and after his election, gave NF members at a party congress in March 2018 what has been described as a "populist pep talk". Bannon advised the party members to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker. ... Hstory is on our side and will bring us victory." Bannon's remarks brought the members to their feet.

References

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors should consider both the general text as well as the specific inclusion of the Bannon quote (see discussions in previous sections) Springee (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE: The statement directly above this is not part of my "request for comment", despite it appearing in the top section of the RfC, which is supposed to be reserved for the initiator's statement of their request. It is the opinion of another editor, who refuses to allow it to be moved into the "Discussion" section below. It should not be considered to be part of the RfC, but merely the suggestion of another editor, and can be ignored if any editor wishes to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - Bannon addressed the party congress of the NF party and brought the members to their feet, meaning that they approved of his advice to take being called xenophobes, nativists and racists as a "badge of honor". The argument that this material is not relevant to a section of this article essentially about the National Front is ludicrous on its face.
• Duh since this was an incredibly meaningful event, and covered as such in, for instance, the Dutch and Belgian press--"Steve Bannon geeft peptalk aan Front National: 'Draag het label racist als een ereteken'", "Steve Bannon vindt ‘gele hesjes’ net Trumpstemmers", "Financiert rechts Amerika de Europese populisten?", or "Front National vindt zichzelf opnieuw uit"--and let no one accuse NRC Handelsblad of being "liberal" (it quotes the same phrase--"let them call you racist"]. No one in Europe fails to see the significance of the Bannon/Trump contribution to European right-wing populism--see this article as well. So yeah, I restored it--because there is no clear consensus against it, and because its relevance to right-wing populism in Europe is copiously documented. Those who say it is not relevant are clearly not au courant with what has been happening in the Front National, for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Malformed RfC: The RfC attempts to cast the above debate as something broader than it really was. The primary point of contention was the specific inclusion of a misleading quote that BMK has been trying to insert in any way possible (see the recent edit history). By adding a wrapper of legitimacy BMK is attempting to avoid the question of the specific quoted text vs the broader topic. I would pose that even if this RfC says yes to the general paragraph it does NOT address inclusion of the quote. Springee (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both the specific Bannon quote and the paragraph in general but for different reasons. The quote is very problematic because BMK has been trying to use it to suggest that Bannon is claiming RW populism is racist etc. However, the material is being quoted out of context. This was discussed here [[4]]. Critically, Bannon is saying this "...does not care about your race, your religion, your ethnicity." There is also the broader question, is this quote actually adding to the reader's understanding of the subject? Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be calls to action. This is supposed to be dry information. Springee (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of the Bannon quote and also oppose portrayal of the NF as "right wing". NF is "far right", and "far right" is not the same thing as "right wing". Bannon, similarly, is "far right", not "right wing". "Far right" populism, or "radical right wing populism" is not the same thing as "right wing populism". All of the sources provided appear to describe both Bannon and the NF as "far right"; none as "right wing". I would support inclusion of these secondary sources and the quote in an article called Far right populism, or in an appropriate section in this article that explains the difference between conservative and reactionary. – Levivich 17:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• No While it's fine to include expert comments that say right-wing populism is racist etc., it violates synthesis to imply this through selective use of comments. And the edit does not explain to readers who Bannon is. Besides how is the reader to know whether comments made to the fascist Front National equally applies to non-fascist radical right parties? TFD (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• No per discussion at Talk:Right-wing_politics and WP:AN and Four Deuces above. Buffs (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes To address points above:

1- It's ridiculous hairsplitting to claim that because Bannon or NF are "far right" that they are not part of the "right wing". Not all right-wing entities are far-right, but all far-right entities are by definition right-wing, just as every square is also a rectangle.

2- Arguing that the edit does not explain to readers who Bannon is would be cause to fix that complaint in wording, not to WP:CENSOR because someone doesn't like it. But in fact the wording includes "Steve Bannon, former advisor to Donald Trump before and after his election..." so The Four Deuces is simply factually incorrect on this.

2a - If one wanted to strengthen or source the fact that Bannon is in fact a right-wing populist, however, one could look at sourcing to that effect easily. [5]

3- The idea that this is quoted out of context is, like the hairsplitting claim that "far right" is not also "right wing", simply ridiculous.

To sum up, the quote is not misleading, those who have repeatedly attempted removal appear to be confusing policy for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Strike per EVADE [6]. Springee (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. I wrote a comment on AN/I and BMK asked me to give my opinion here. It is this comment. I can add to this that we need to consider that our society is dynamic, the way politicians behave and what is seen to be acceptable or not within some political movement is not going to be constrained by traditional definition, Wikipedia has top cover what goes on in the real world according to reliable sources. Whether we like it or not, what was "right wing" 15 years ago is not what is "right wing" today. Who could have thought 15 years ago that a president of a democratic country could make these statements with a straight face? Count Iblis (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• no, don't include The way that it's put together it is wp:synthesis. Also, selection of those particular words from the speech and removing them from context significantly changes the meaning from the actual one. Finally, this is a pretty much uninformative content-free "swipe"; we should be striving to build an informative article. North8000 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral pointers to this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I oppose the addition of the quote. The quote gives no information on the right, it is similar to “sticks and stones” because Bannon is telling the national rally not to be harmed by false accusations of racism. The interpretation Ken gives is beyond reasonable doubt to be from a bias that is inadmissible here on Wikipedia. Victor Salvini (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ahem, “Let them call you racists. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists,” he said. “Wear it as a badge of honor.” There's nothing in there about false accusations. Please stick to the sources. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think there is. The quote has clearly been taken out of context. That was one of the key reasons why the quote has, thus far, been soundly rejected here [[7]]. This time BMK has added some context and some useful information (the public standing of the FN) but the quote itself, in violation of WP:SYN, is being used to imply something it didn't mean when seen in it's original context. That is a serious problem for WP:V. Springee (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on the context of this quote, this is a misinterpretation that is trying to state that right wing populism is racist which it is not. Right before Bannon got to this section of the speech he was talking about Trump’s policies, that he supports, saying "...does not care about your race, your religion, your ethnicity." Based on this, the quote is being taken out of context to imply a false conclusion. Victor Salvini (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Here’s another quote from before the quote in question: “You fight for your country and they call you racist. But the days when those kind of insults work is over.“ Bannon is clearly implying that the term is being used as a false insult against them, he in no way says “we’re racists” or “we should embrace racism”. Victor Salvini (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no misinterpretation, and the further context merely reinforces Bannon's meaning. To interpret any other way appears to be a deliberate misreading in order to further a POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No, *you* are the one misunderstanding the quote. I’m getting tired of this and I’m not explaining again what the quote means, it’s been explained countless times by multiple users now, including me. If after all of this you are still failing to see that you’re misunderstanding the quote, that is the sign that you, not I, are the one guilty of deliberate misreading in order to further a POV. A supermajority of users opposed you in right wing politics for reasons that were all more or less correct, and it looks like a supermajority will oppose you here for those same reasons. I suggest you take off your bias glasses and re read both discussions, because now you’re being straight up unreasonable. Victor Salvini (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is no misunderstanding on my part - you appear to believe that once someone expresses their opinion, everyone else must give in to it and accept it as the final word. That's simply not true, especially when the opinion is not supported by the facts. The Big Lie simply will not work here. The quote's entire context is provided, and the meaning is abundantly clear to anyone who isn't willfully misinterpreting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Refactoring of comments: Please do not refactor comments into chronological order. Comments are nested to reflect the comment to which they are in reply to. Per WP:TPO, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Springee (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I advised you to read TPO, but you obviously didn't do a very good job of it. Here's a section trhat you should have noted:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels... (emphasis added)

Now, Springee, a question for you, since you are so concerned about comments being refactored: why did you delete my final comment in the section above, the one which begins "There is no misunderstanding on my part..."? It appears in my version of the section [8], but not in yours [9]. You appear to have been so worried that I might have distorted something by making the discussion indented properly (which your version isn't, BTW) that you actually deleted a comment by another editor.

Even though this is not the first time you've misstated or misunderstood a Wikipedia policy (see below for many examples), in this case I'm willing to AGF that this was an accident on your part, but I would advise you to read TPO much more thoroughly then you obviously have, so you know what is and isn't allowed. My adjustments were allowed, your deletion was most certainly not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake on my part. The edit here [[10]] made it look like you took a comment made on the 13th and changed it to a comment on the 26th. It was a quirk of how the system indicated the changes. That said, you shouldn't change the nesting of other comments. Despite your previous comments, I try to be deliberate in my nesting (though phone edits sometimes make that hard). My intent is to nest one level below the intended reply comment. Thus in an example like below, comment 2 and 4 are in reply to comment 1. Comment 3 is in reply to comment 2.

Comment 1

Comment 2

Comment 3

Comment 4

It would be best if you asked or discussed your intent first rather than make changes that may not reflect the intent of other editors. Springee (talk)

If I altered your intent on any comment in the past, it was not deliberate, and I apologize for the error. However, I do not need to ask your permission to fix indentation on a talk page, especially when my indentation was correct, and your reversion of it was unnecessary and rather WP:BATTLEFIELDy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming the removal of my comment here was inadvertent [[11]]. The removed text said that in the past your indentation changed have changed my intended nesting of comments. That said, in today's case, I think I was mistaken. If you look at this edit here [[12]], towards the bottom of the "show changes" the system suggests that you were changing your (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC) comment into a (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC). Based on that it looked like you were altering a previous comment and changing the order of comments. However, it appears that was just the system incorrectly aligning the changes. My apologies. Given the previous discussions related to this topic as well as the ANI you filed it would probably be best to avoid doing things that could look like refactoring other's comments without some sort of discussion first. Springee (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

I hope this edit war hasn't been caused by my recents edits in #definitions. I tried to give three definitions, one global by Mudde (nativism,authoritarianism,populism), with nativism being a xenophobic form of nationalism; and thereafter one by Camus & Lebourg oriented on the strategies & methods; and one by Eatwell, some will say more lenient, but that highlights the deep motivations of national populists. I hope my today's edits have made the whole section clearer. Azerty82 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, Azerty, your edits were not the cause. The cause is quite simple: there are people here who will go to the ends of the earth to prevent right-wing mastermind Steve Bannon's remarks to the National Front -- in which he implicitly admitted that right-wing populism is xenophobic, nativist, and racist -- from appearing in this article. They objected when the material consisted only of a straight-forward description of Bannon's remarks, they objected when his remarks were buttressed with unimpeachable academic sources which confirmed what he said, they objected when additional details were added from other sources, and they objected after I moved the material to a section about the National Front. In short, they are bound-and-determined that this material not appear on Wikipedia.
  They are, in point of fact, WP:CENSORing information that they disagree with, whitewashing the article (and right-wing politics} of ideas they don't want the public to read. I've never seen, in my 14 years here, a more blatantly obvious attempt to force a political POV on an article - there's simply no other way to account for the great energy they have put into this campaign across multiple articles to deprive Wikipedia's readers of pertinent information. If their campaign succeeds, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia, whose readers deserve to know that a handful of like-minded editors can control the content of political articles simply by block voting not in favor of what's best for our articles, or our readers, but what's best for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating Bannon's importance in European right-wing populism. Few of their leaders want to meet him and even the FN leader said she wasn't interested in Bannon because he "Mr Bannon is not from any European country, he is American."[13] (I think that may be coded language, in which case it is even stronger language than it sounds.) TFD (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, this argument from you seems to be a No true scotsman fallacy, given that Bannon literally delivered those words on-stage with Le Pen. [14] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not following you. What does any of this have to do with the No True Scotsman? Perhaps you are confusing it with some other story. TFD (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bannon is widely regarded as a right-wing leader, even having served a stint as the right-hand man of the President of the United States. Bannon is widely regarded as, specifically, a leader in right-wing populism; there are literal quotes to that effect so strong that they are in the lede of the article about him on Wikipedia. When he gave the speech, he was literally standing on the same stage as Marine Le Pen, the leader of (sourced right in this article) the "prototypical populist radical right-wing party" and "most successful populist party of Europe as of 2015".

So when you attempt to say that his importance is being "exaggerated" because he's "not important", that's just ridiculous. And to claim "few of their leaders want to meet him" based on misrepresenting an article from October 8, 2018 when he then was literally on stage with Le Pen herself less than a month later?[15] That's "no true scotsman". What you appear to be trying to claim is that he doesn't "really count" as a right-wing populist via some incredible stretching and distortion. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You are drawing a lot of connections that are not immediately obvious and therefore would require a secondary source to connect the dots. For example, what relevance is there that Bannon served Trump when Trump is not considered a right-wing populist in reliable sources? And while Bannon may be a leader of right-wing populism, he is not the leader. You make something about his attendance at the FN conference, but party conferences typically invite people with a range of views. Tulsi Gabbard for example spoke at the DNC convention, but that does not mean she represents the mainstream Democratic view. You need a secondary source that explains this. And while the FN is a right-wing populist party, you need a source that their view on this issue is the same as the other right-wing populist parties. While your analysis may be correct, NOSYN says that any analysis must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If you think this speech is relevant and of such great significance that it should be mentioned, then you should be able to find a source that says that. I know that textbooks take a long time to come out, but there are experts, such as Cas Mudde and Luke March who routinely write articles about developments in the subject. TFD (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Except that when I provided two axcademic sources to "connect the dots" the Bannon quote was deleted anyway. This discussion has been an exercise in goalpoat moving designed to prevent the quote from being used in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"And while the FN is a right-wing populist party, you need a source that their view on this issue is the same as the other right-wing populist parties" - That, right there, is attempted No true scotsman. And it's taken to an absurdist level given the earlier quotes already in the article that The Four Deuces is ignoring. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let me explain the No True Scotsman story, since you seemed to have missed the point. A Scotsman reading about he criminal says he could not be a Scotsman. When told he was, the proud Scot says he cannot be a true Scotsman. Your interpretation of the story is that because one Scotsman is a criminal all Scotsmen are criminals. In this case, the fact that Bannon's comments were racist and well-received by one right-wing populist party does not mean that all right-wing populist parties are. Nor has anyone used the True Scotsman argument that because the is racist it is not a true right-wing populist party. Everyone agrees that racism is a key element of some if not all right-wing populist parties. Fortunately there are experts who write books and articles about right-wing populism and we can use them to make the points you want to include rather than presenting our personal conclusions. TFD (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"A Scotsman reading about he criminal says he could not be a Scotsman...Your interpretation of the story is that because one Scotsman is a criminal all Scotsmen are criminals."" No, your attempted reversal is incorrect. You, and one or two other people above, have been insisting that Bannon "does not count" as a right-wing populist (i.e. Scotsman) through various less than honest redefinitions. In this new argument you've moved on to a "#NotAllMen" sort of tactic, but it's still an intellectually dishonest tactic.

Further, you try to goalpost-move with "And while Bannon may be a leader of right-wing populism, he is not the leader". Assigning "one" leader is such a ridiculous and impossible standard that it would be impossible to use examples of speech by leaders virtually anywhere, unless they were on the order of prime ministers or presidents. Bannon is a leader, standing right next to another leader who just so happens to lead the "prototypical populist radical right-wing party" of France at the time the speech was given. To propose that this does not represent right-wing populism in that context is to move the goalposts somewhere past Mars orbit. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is a Scotsman in your analogy and which person am I saying is not a true Scotsman? TFD (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Let's go back to what TFD said a few comments back:

"And while the [National Front] is a right-wing populist party, you need a source that their view on this issue is the same as the other right-wing populist parties."

While this might have been the case when the Bannon quote was included in the "Definition" section (although I believe I could mount a convincing argument otherwise because of the supporting academic sources), it is most certainly not true now when the quote is in a section about the National Front.

The other problem is that there is no statement in that material of what the "National Front's view" is, so there is no need for connection with the views of other RWP parties. The material says that Bannon said X in front of an assembly of National Front members, and that the "pep talk" brought the members to their feet. It certainly does not say that the National Front's official view is that right-wing populism, or the National Front, are "xenophobic, racist and nativist". In fact, I'm pretty sure that they would do everything possible to avoid saying that, because it's bad press and contradicts Le Pen's attempts to frame the party as part of the mainstream. This is precisely why Bannon's remarks are so important to include in the article, because a right-wing leader actually said what scholars, analysts, historians, and pundits have been saying forever, about the essential nature of right-wing populism.

However, according the view of some editors here, what those scholars, analysts, historians and pundits are saying can't be published in our article because their views are alarmist. Never mind that the actually said those things, and that they are reliable sources, because people might become alarmed about right-wing populism based on the considered opinions of subject experts, we can't include what those subject experts say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

News media in scholarly section

@Beyond My Ken:, this material was removed because it isn't a scholarly work. The article implies the scholar recently released a paper making claims. While the impact of the paper on scholarship has yet to be seen, this section is based on higher levels of RS's, scholarly works. The source you are adding isn't at that level.[[16]] Per ONUS (policy) the edit is reverted until there is consensus to include it. Springee (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If an expert says "X", then we say "X". It is irrelevant if they wsay "X" in a book, a journal article, a media outlet or a personal blog. The reliable source is the expert. We are not limited to academic sources, we use all sorts of reliable sources on Wikipedia. Please do not remove it again without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, your edit summary is incorrect, because the edit was not a BOLD one, it was simply the ordinary addition of reliable sourced material, sp BRD does not apply. What does apply is that reliably sourced information shouldn't be removed without a consensus - so go get one. Unless you want to argue that you just don't personally believe that right-wing populism is accurately described as xenophobic, authoritarian and racist, and that is why you're attempting to remove these quotes, not all the various things you've been citing. You might at least come clean and be honest about your motivations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My summary was correct. You added new information. You might not see it as "BOLD" but it was new information vs say a grammatical correction. BRD most definitely does apply to reliably sourced information. RS is a minimum. You need to review ONUS which is part of WP:V. It says that verifiable doesn't ensure inclusion. You claim "reliably sourced information shouldn't be removed without a consensus", well point to that policy or guideline. The last part of your comment is casting aspersions. You need to review CIVIL. Springee (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, do you understand that Wikipedia POLICY says when an edit is challenged and reverted you don't edit war to restore it. You get consensus first. Do you have consensus for this new material? This isn't the first time in the last few days you resorted to edit warring.

Second, you say he is a scholar but the quote isn't his, it was from the reporter talking about the work. The rest of the section cites actual scholarship. You cited a politico article. If you think the material should be included in the definition then cite the work and show that the work says the definition of right-wing populism is X. Springee (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, no. Look again. BRD is NOT policy, it is an essay. And no, look again, the quote is by Shenkman, who is a Fellow of the American Society of Historians, who wrote the article, and who is cited in the edit I posted. Get you facts straight, please, and please start indented your comments properly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, all of this is totally irrelevant, because it's totally obvious to anyone looking on that your editing is a vblatant violation of WP:NPOV, and that you are removing information simply becasue you disagree with it.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BRD isn't policy but ONUS and CONSENSUS are. Shenkman is writing about Rosenburg and saying that Rosenburg is saying X. So cite the Rosenburg paper, not Shenkman. This isn't a peer reviewed article. Presumably Rosenburg's is. Get your facts straight and start following Wikipedia policy. Springee (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Read it again. He is not ascribing those words to Rosenberg, those are his words. Shenkman says that Rosenberg says that the failure of the elites drives people to right-wing populism, and Shenkman says that what right-wing populism has to offer is "a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism." He never says, or implies in any way, that Rosenberg said that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the recently added material fails verification. The sentence says, Historian Rick Shenkman describes the ideology presented by right-wing populism as "a deadly mix of xenpohobia, racism, and authoritarianism. This is not correct. The paragraph from the article says:

He [Rosenburg] has concluded that the reason for right-wing populists’ recent success is that “elites” are losing control of the institutions that have traditionally saved people from their most undemocratic impulses. When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism.

Shenkman is saying that Rosenburg is claiming "When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism." So first, it is not correct to say Shenkam is describing anything other than what Rosenburg says (which begs the question, why not quote Rosenburg instead). Perhaps we can also ask, what does this add to the section? The section already says right-wing populism is xenophobic etc. Rather than throwing in discombobulated quotes wouldn't it be better to organize what the sources are saying? In that single paragraph xenophobic is clear but racism is noted as often part of but not always or inherently part of. This looks a bit like a way to justify the existence of the Bannon quote. The same key words are there. But I might be reading too much into that one. If we are including Rosenburg's views then let's cite his paper. If we are including Shenken's views then cite his scholarly work on the subject. Don't present Rosenburg's views as Shenken's then do a poor job of integrating it into the whole of the article. Springee (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, you're reading it as you want to read it so that you can use it as a justification to remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course, you are the only one who can read it as it was meant to be read. Here's an easy solution. If Shenkam feels that way you can find a scholarly article that says as much. If Rosenburg is actually saying it (which is more logical in context) then you can cite it to Rosenberg. That will take care of that problem. As is, it doesn't pass WP:V. Springee (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Do youself a favor which will stop you from looking worse than you do already. Download Rosenberg's paper from here and search in it for "a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism" or any grouping similar to that. You will not find it, because that is Shenkman's gloss on what right-wing populism has to offer, not necessarily Rosenberg's. In fact, THE WORD RACISM DOESN'T EVEN APPEAR IN THE PAPER.

Do you want to know how I knew it was Shenkman speaking and not Rosenberg? Well, I'll tell you. "A deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism" is powerful language, and the only thing that would make it more powerful is if Rosenberg had said it himself. But we know that Rosenberg didn't say it himself in the paper, because Shenkman did not put quotes around it. Shenkman is an author of multiple books, he's a writer-historian, he knows how to frame language in the best way for the best impact. The very fact that he didn't put quotes around any part of "a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism" means that it was him talking and not Rosenberg. Even if Rosenberg had said something close enough that with ellipses it could say the close to the same thing, Shenkman would probably have used it. But Shenkmen didn't.

So, yes, of all the people commenting here, I am the only one who read the paragraph correctly, and there's a reason for that -- because you are grasping at straws to remove material that conflicts with your personal political POVs, and I am not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please remember that CIVIL is a policy. If, as you say that was Shenken vs Rosenberg, and I'm assuming not just a paraphrase of Rosenberg, then find where he said the same in scholarship. Based on your comment here it appears you looked the Rosenberg paper up after the fact. You didn't even know when you were inserting the material. That looks more like you did a keyword search vs reviewing actual scholarship. Regardless, you still most follow CONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you have provided the Rosenberg paper a few of your claims can be addressed in better detail. Rosenberg isn't using inflamitory rhetoric but comments like "racism doesn't appear" suggest a keyword search rather than a read of the paper. On page 5 Rosenberg outlines what RWP incorporates (which he credits to Mudde). This includes distinguishing people by specific core beliefs including shared attributes like race. He goes on to say the "who we are" often includes a "who we are not" and these can lead to xenophobia etc. Basically, using Rosenberg's summary would be far more useful in this article rather than trying to quote scare words as you have been trying to do (both here and with Bannon). Rosenberg steps through how A leads to B which may lead to C and/or D etc. He explains the how, not just the alarmist sounding what.

A core problem with the edits you have championed here is they only focus on alarmist terms. It's like trying to discredit someone by claiming they are racist but not explaining why. If your objective is to have people read that paragraph and just say "that must be yucky!" well perhaps your efforts are successful. However, if your objective is actually to educate the readers and help them understand WHY the perfectly reasonable sounding comments of someone who is labeled as RWP, then you need to tone down the alarm and provide the detail.

To help illustrate that last point consider something like rent control. Economists will tell you that rent control is a bad idea, it doesn't work. But to many it sounds appealing. "Rents are going up, a law that stops that is good!" But that same law can distort the market resulting in long time tenants paying less than "average market value" while new renters pay more. It also disincentives the construction of new housing which increases supply (and thus shifts the supply and demand curve). A poor quality Wiki article on rent control might just say "economists say it hurts those it tries to help!" and leave it at that. But if the logic of how isn't explained readers might just assume the article was edited by biased people who don't care about renters. Even if editors don't agree with the aim of the subjects of the articles, they should be dispassionate in explaining how and why, not just what. Sloppy adding of what makes a mess of the article. Springee (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

" Economists will tell you that rent control is a bad idea, it doesn't work" if you think that's the lesson from actual economists you're a certified kook. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/rent-controls-winners-losers "To Diamond, the study validates much of the skepticism about rent control. But she argues that the surprisingly big benefits suggest that cities should look for alternative forms of protecting renters — such as tax credits or subsidies that offset soaring rents. “Right now, the government already provides lots of different insurance — unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and insurance to help securitize mortgages,” Diamond notes. “But we don’t provide any formal insurance against rent increases.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.105.123 (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

[[17]], [[18]]. Thanks for basically illustrating the point. Without some discussion the simplistic one liners don't pass usable knowledge to the readers. Springee (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as a "scholarly section". I suppose it can happen that editors agree that in a certain section only scholarly sources are to be used, but I've never seen that happen. This person is a bona fide expert on a couple of things, and is worth citing--BMK, as far as I can tell, is correct with the ascription. There is no need to talk about rent control, nor do I believe that "Economists will tell you that rent control is a bad idea", BTW. Certain economists, maybe. No, this quote may be a one-liner, but if properly contextualized it is valid--in the context, it adds only "deadly mix" to what was said before, but after a plethora of deaths that is worth stating. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies is correct, there is no such thing as a "scholarly" or "academic" section in a Wikipedia article, unless such a requirement has been created under Discretionary Sanctions or an ArbCom case. Otherwise, any reliable source may be used.
  For instance, right now ArbCom is voting on remedies for the "Antisemitism in Poland" arbitration case, and one of the remedies (which has passed) is:

  Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. [19]

  Just to state the painfully obvious, there would be absolutely no need for ArbCom to craft such a requirement for a specific set of articles if such a standard was already in place for all of Wikipedia. The remedy is not a reminder to editors to hew to existing sourcing requirement, it is a brand new sourcing requirement , essentially created ex nihilo (in actuality it was lifted from a DS standard place on a single article in the subject area which has now been extended to the entire range of the topic) and applied to the subject area. So arguments that a subject expert's opinion can't be used siimply because it was reported in a news source and not an academic one are completely wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Since that isn’t what I said your diatribe is irrelevant to my argument. Please consider what DGG is trying to tell you here [[20]] Springee (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you send Drmies a note to that effect as well?

Your comment is not pertinent to this discussion, since DGG was referring to the Bannon quote, and this section is about the Shenkman wuote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You are missing the point and clearly not listening to others. Springee (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I am listening to others. I am not listening to you, for reasons that should be obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt you aren't listening to me. However, evidence suggests isn't not just me [[21]]. I'm happy to talk with Drmies to help her understand my meaning. Your misinterpretations are going nowhere. Springee (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion at Right-wing politics -- which if what you linked to -- is not relevant to this discussion. Not only does this discussion concern completely different material (the Shenkman quote, and not the Bannon quote), but this is a completely different article, and argument made over there may or may not apply here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

For anything specific, especially if controversial, we cite from the best available source. Rosenberg's own paper is the best source for his opinions, not the rewrite and possible misunderstanding of it by someone else in Politico. Politico, quite rightly, calls the work "shocking" which is an appropriate judgment by a commentator and corresponds to what anyone can see for themselves from Rosenberg's paper, from which I quote " I conclude that citizens lack the capacity to meet the requirements of liberal democratic governance and therefore will find its principles and practices incomprehensible, alien and difficult to enact. However for most people, populism offers a vision, values and practices which can be more readily understood, embraced and executed. " I consider Rosenberg's views the sort of extraordinary statement that needs special care in handling, and must be cited from the only authoritative source for them, his own writings. This is one of the cases where WP:RS insist son using the primary source, tho secondary sources can help explain it. The Shenkman article in Politico can be used as a reference for Shenkman's opinion on it as a qualified commentator. and, as for a definition, he accepts "As suggested by Mudde (Mudde, 2007; Mudde & Kaltswasser, 2017) in his influential statement, RWP is comprised of political attitudes that can be divided into three clusters: populism, nativism and authoritarianism. " Note that he ascribes it to Mudde, from whom it should be quoted. (Mudde, C. (2007)., Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe,: Cambridge University Press; Mudde, C. and Kaltswasser, C. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press).

I will just mention that I have no idea who above is supporting what, or the nature of any editor's political opinion. I deliberately don't look at such things when asked to judge sources. I look at the challenged statement in its context. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: You are obviously correct, Rosenberg's paper is the best source for Rosnmberg's opinions, but, as I explained in detail above [22], the "deadly mix" quote is Shenkman's and not Rosenberg's. Rosenberg never says anything remotely like that in his paper. In fact, the word "racism" or its variants do not appear in it at all. What Rosenberg says is that the failure of democracy drives people to right-wing populism, and then Shenkman (a writer-historian) characterizes RWP as "a deadly mix of xenpohobia, racism, and authoritarianism." That is why Shenkman's article is cited for Shenkman;s opinion, while I used Rosenberg's paper (in the paragraph above) for material taken from that paper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: New ping, because I tweaked the previous comment. Sorry for fussing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, as I explained above it isn't clear if Shenkman is summarizing Rosenberg's position or offering his own. You said Rosenberg doesn't say "deadly mix" but when reading through the paper it's not clear if that is simply Shenkman's way to summarize part of Rosenberg's bigger picture. As such you should cite a paper by Shenkman rather than an article with an ambiguity as to who's view is being quoted. Springee (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's quite clear, and I explained why. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Without hyperbole, please provide a specific cite from Rosenberg's paper which you believe Shenkman is characterizing with "a deadly mix of xenpohobia, racism, and authoritarianism." Please be certain to include "deadly" and "racism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

ONUS is on you to show that Shenkman wasn't summarizing in his own words. Springee (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's decidedly uncivil and needlessly provocative or goading someone, to say something like that after they literally wrote a long explanation above doing so. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have more than satisfied the requirements of ONUS with this edit. Please provide a specific citation from Rosenberg's paper which you believe Shenkman is characterizing with "a deadly mix of xenpohobia, racism, and authoritarianism." Please be certain to include "deadly" and "racism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No you haven't. I provided the quote in context of the Shenkman article. If this is Shenkman's view then you should have no trouble finding a source where it's clear. Springee (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: Beyond My Ken ably satisfied the WP:ONUS by showing that Shenkman's wording, and indeed specific words you are arguing about, do not even appear in the Rosenberg paper. He doesn't need to go hunting a different source to satisfy your confusion of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with actual policy. Your "no you haven't" definitely smacks of Sealioning, or at a minimum just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

And I also already addressed BMK's question. Springee (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"please provide a specific cite from Rosenberg's paper which you believe Shenkman is characterizing with "a deadly mix of xenpohobia, racism, and authoritarianism." Please be certain to include "deadly" and "racism"." You have not done so, @Springee:. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The third defining component of RWP is its authoritarianism. This has two core aspects.One pertains to its conception of the leadership. Guided by its roots in ideological fascism (e.g.Gentile, 1928) and its affinity to the fascist governments of 1930s Germany and Italy. I guess those governments were all fun and games. Springee (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Xenophobia not mentioned, racism not mentioned, deadly not mentioned. One could make a case for fascism as a subset of authoritarianism, but to get from that quote to what you're representing is a violation of both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, Springee. The words deadly, xenophobia, racism, and authoritarianism are all the words of Shenkman, not Rosenberg. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to quote the whole paper. 19:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You were asked to provide a quote that supported your view that it's Rosenberg's paper, not Shenkman, that is the origin of the following words in the Politico quotation: deadly, xenophobia, racism, authoritarianism. The quote you provided has none of those and does not support your assertion. You will need to provide quotations that support your position and there is no need to quote "the whole paper" to do so. Just the actual quotes, if they exist, that support your claim will suffice. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO if you want to make an informative article IMO it needs to be recognized that "sources" are often really combatants in a political contest rather than useful sources. IMO an effort to use Wiki rules to try to work in low-content "bashing" text is not a very useful endeavor towards making an informative article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, and possibly provide policy support? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• OK, after a week of no activity, my read is we have a no-consensus for this new material as added. While I think the edits should be reverted perhaps we can come up with a better option. The intro to the section starts off with a true description/definition. The latter parts are just Expert A said these words (no context). What about actually trying to put the latter material into some sort of narrative/logical form more like the intro? If we are going to have an expert claim RWP=deadly mix of XYZ we should say why. The earlier material in the section does this. For example, it says RWP includes (my paraphrase) an Us vs Them element. While not inherently racist, Us vs Them frequently is or will evolve to be in part based on race. Hence racism isn't inherently part of but is a logical outcome of RWP. We are supposed to push for a neutral presentation of the evidence. Including scare quotes doesn't really do that. In my experience it's typically the way people get non-neutral/POV language into Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• The RfC is still open, and still has another 13 days to run, so, no, there is no consensus as of yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sept 22 IP edit

@Beyond My Ken:, Could you justify the restoration of this material? [[23]] The IP editor was right in noting that the material was not supported. We recently deleted an article that seemed to be just a list of RW-populism articles. How is this different? Springee (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless proper sourcing can be provided for the claim made, then this shouldn’t be in the article due to the magnitude of what it’s trying to imply. Victor Salvini (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if the text can be sourced, it requires more detail. "Other populist parties have links to fascist movements" reads more like a polemical attack on populism rather than educate us. Which populist parties? Why are there ties? TFD (talk)

I'll third that, BMK. Please explain. Buffs (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the claim + per WP:LEAD and WP:RS. The given source is unpublished and the topic is not expanded upon in the body of the article. Buffs (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is published online, so that claim is untrue. It will also be published in a forthcoming book. I've restored that part of the edit. Please get a consensus here for the removal of this sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It's better than what was in there before but needs more detail about why the author considers it similar to fascism: "its demand for strong leadership coupled with its explicit rejection of or discomfort with the legal conception of the nation as a polity and its members as citizens, the rights of minorities and the rule of law." TFD (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added more content, both from Rosenberg, and from others, detailing the complex relationship between populism and fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal / restoration of Rosenberg article.

Beyond My Ken, your reason for restoration here is invalid [[24]]. Buffs challenged your addition of content. Per ONUS and NOCON it is up to the editor wishing to change the article (adding new material in this case) to justify the inclusion if challenged. You added the material less than two weeks ago [[25]]. Buffs has challenged the addition. "No consensus for removal" is not a valid reason to restore. There may be a valid reason but you should come here and offer it. I tend to question the content as it seems to be just jammed into the article without any real purpose. We also don't know if the paper with have weight due to it being new. Springee (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, why have such a long quote in the definition section? Is that really a definition or a recent quote you happen to like? Overall it doesn't seem like a definition so much as a quote that Rossen has taken from an earlier manuscript. Additionally, why would we give so much weight to this manuscript given that we have another source that argues that Shenkman find's Rossenburg's conclusions in this paper rather shocking. It doesn't seem he agrees with them. See DGG's comment above. Perhaps it would be better to propose what changes you want to make here and we can all discuss how they could be integrated? Springee (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Fixing DGG Springee (talk)

Same old song. And a new one as well: first demand additional explication of the author's views, and then complain when I add it. Again, the same old POV behavior from you, trying every trick in the book to remove this very relevant material. Face it, there is a relationship between populism and fascism, and your deperate efforts to erase it will not work. No one is saying that they're the same thing, but populism can definitely have fascist leanings, and can, under certain conditions, morph into fascism. That's important, relevant, pertinent material that should be in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's also a policy song that you should be following. It appears that you are taking a paper that was viewed as rather radical and now adding a lot of content to what is supposed to be the definition of Right Wing Populism. How can you justify that a radical, and recently released paper is a good source for the definition. Springee (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed per UNDUE. The material was described as "Shocking" per discussion above. Please get consensus before restoring. Springee (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Restored. There's been no consensus determination that the material is UNDUE. Get a consensus please before deleting relevant sourced material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please follow BRD and NOCON and ONUS. This is new content and has been removed by Buffs and then myself. That means the editor trying to add the content needs to get consensus first. Springee (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot remove material you dislike simply by saying "UNDUE". What is DUE and UNDUE is determined by a consensus discussion, which has not occurred. Get a consensus that it is UNDUE - start an RfC, perhaps, and then you can remove it, but not before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the material was challenged. Per WP:ONUS, While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. If the material is challenged, and is has been, now it is up to you to achieve consensus for inclusion. It is not up to me or Buffs to show that there is consensus for removal. Springee (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Meeting wp:ver (e.g. having sourcing) is one of the conditions for inclusion, not a force or reason for inclusion. Also, saying that one can just put in material and then require a super majority (wp:consensus) to remove it is getting it backwards. North8000 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, Ken wants to make biased edits and cram his POV into wiki using sources that support him. Now the page is under protected status. If this were to be allowed I should be able to go over to communism and quote sources that suit me and inject sections about it “secretly working with capitalists” ( I’ve actually seen some people argue this to me). The point is, use some common sense people! Just because someone says something is one thing doesn’t mean it’s that thing, rationality should also be applied. Victor Salvini (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosen's remarks are from an UNPUBLISHED paper and should not be included, period. There is no editorial control over these remarks at this time.

BMK, your addition is challenged by no less than 4 people (including me) as UNDUE and, as such, should be removed. You do not have the right to add material and then demand a 1-month RfC to determine appropriateness or DUE/UNDUE-ness. Buffs (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

RSN Rossenberg paper

I've reverted Simonm223's restoration of the material discussed here [[26]]. I don't think we have either a local consensus nor a RSN consensus to include the material. Due is the primary concern though some editors also questioned RS because this is a pre-publication text. Springee (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

RSN was VERY clear with you that the source is reliable. If you have concerns about how to frame that information WRT WP:DUE we can start from the point where the information was included and refine it. This idea that we must keep information off the page during yet another endless discussion of whether it's OK to criticize the far-right in Wikipeida is inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable wasn't the problem here. DUE was the discussion above and currently consensus is against based on the addition being UNDUE. As for refinement, the ONUS to refine is on those who think the material is due, not the other way around. The discussion above is Beyond My Ken supporting, Buffs, Victor Salvini, North8000 and myself opposing. While the article was generally considered to be the a peer reviewed article published by an expert, it is not widely cited (it's new). More critically DUE was mentioned by Red Rock Canyon, and to some extent by Shinealittlelight. It appears that Simonm223 restored the text based on the view it was seen as reliable but that doesn't address the question of DUE. Springee (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I do believe the information is due, though I'd be willing to discuss edits to make it more appropriately in line with WP:DUE - but starting from a position of inclusion. It appears that Shinealittlelight didn't believe it was reliable - as mentioned repeatedly at RS/N - the deletion of the information was based around the unfounded claim that the information was not reliably sourced. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That means 2 in favor vs or 5 or 6 who say it's not due. Shine was also concerned that the article was giving so much weight to a recent paper while ignoring a very well cited paper that doesn't seem to agree that well. However, I will let Shine make there case here should they choose to. Either way, currently there is a consensus against including this, not just no consensus, but against. Springee (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to have the paper in this article. Based on what I’m reading, this gives the article an erroneous bias against right wing populism by falsely comparing it to fascism. And as springee said, the paper is new, and disagrees with a much more popular paper on the topic. Victor Salvini (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Falsely" Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You are creating a strawman. By your logic anti-elitists are part fascist. If right wing populists are fascists, then that means every right winger in Europe is a fascist and that the right wing and far right are synonymous. Victor Salvini (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, this paper doesn't belong, except as a very small part (because it's a brand new paper) of a larger summary of the complicated literature on this topic. It certainly shouldn't receive a huge block quote. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, I do not understand what Rossenberg means by saying the "intellectual roots and underlying logic" of right-wing populism are best seen as "a contemporary expression of the fascist ideologies of the early 20th century." I would want to see a clear explanation of what he is saying before considering for inclusion. Also, your wording implies it is his personal opinion which implies no one else agrees. In that case it would be UNDUE. But perhaps he is reflecting on what others have said. TFD (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There was recently a discussion on the Fascism talk page (Talk:Fascism/Archive 51#Fascism and Populism) about the whether to mention populism in the lead of the article. Some editors here are aware of that discussion. Sources were brought up there that might be useful in this discussion as well. I'm not personally very familiar with the literature, but from what I've read, I believe that anyone who spends a little time looking will find dozens of high quality articles and books where expert scholars discuss the relationship between populism and fascism and come to many different, sometimes contradictory, conclusions. I think any material on the subject should try to reflect the academic consensus by looking for secondary and tertiary sources that examine the many competing claims by different political scientists and historians. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, Please stop restoring this text [[27]]. It should be 100% clear by now that at best there is no consensus for inclusion based on UNDUE. I would argue that at this point consensus is against inclusion based on a lack of WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not clear, because the reasons given are not policy-based. In fact, they are drastic mis-interpretations of policy. The only reasons the material is being removed is that people such as yourself appear to object to right-wing populism being linked in any way to fascism. Well, I can't help that, multiple scholars make that connection, and there is a verifiable historical connection between right-wing populist parties and pre- and post-war fascist parties. You don't like it, that's really too bad, it's verifiable, and you cannot keep it out of the article based on your politics, which is all that's happening here. If you continue to do that, this is going to end up with a ArbCom case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

CONSENSUS policy. CIVIL is also policy. If you think the talk page consensus is incorrect a RfC is an option but please don't restore the material until the RfC is complete if you choose that path. Springee (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and so is NPOV, which you've blatantly violating for weeks now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I am going to restore the pertinent, reliable sourced material to the article which was removed with NPOV edits. It can be removed once the RfC deterjmines if it is UNDUE or not. As it stands, it is NOT undue, because no consensus has been determined, so there is no reason -- except your POV -- to leave it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Per NOCON the change is reverted. There is NOCON and several editors have removed the material. Springee (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ken, you are blatantly attempting to force your POV into this article. Stop. The majority of other editors agree that your edits are inappropriate . This has gone on for over a month now. Just stop. Victor Salvini (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm attempting to include reliably-sourced and pertinent material to the article, while you and Spinrgee and Buffs are attempting to exclude it. Because it's pertinent, the only possible reason you are doing is because it doesn't fall in line with your ideology. The only POV operating here comes from you would-be censors, not from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

1. You are sourcing an unpublished document. By definition, that's an unreliable source. I mean, I've submitted 2 jokes to Reader's Digest and they are thinking about publishing them, but that doesn't mean it's a reliable source (yet)
2. It also fails WP:N. Since when is a left-leaning professor's negative views about right leaning topics/organization notable?
3. I've made ONE edit to this article (ok, a series of 3)...that's it. You've been at this for over a month. Please stop.

Enough is enough. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Is this material linking right-wing populism with fascism UNDUE?

Is the following material, which discusses the connections between right-wing populism and fascism, UNDUE for inclusion in the "Definition" section of this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In regard to the authoritarian aspect of right-wing populism, political psychologist Shawn W. Rosenberg asserts that its "intellectual roots and underlying logic" are best seen as "a contemporary expression of the fascist ideologies of the early 20th century".

Guided by its roots in ideological fascism ... and its affinity to the fascist governments of 1930s Germany and Italy, [right-wing populism] tends to delegate unusual power to its leadership, more specifically its key leader. This leader embodies the will of the people, renders it clear for everyone else and executes accordingly. Thus distinctions between the leadership, the people as a whole and individuals are blurred as their will is joined in a single purpose. (p.5) ... In this political cultural conception, individuals have a secondary and somewhat derivative status. They are rendered meaningful and valued insofar as they are part of the collective, the people and the nation. Individuals are thus constituted as a mass who share a single common significant categorical quality – they are nationals, members of the nation. ... In this conception, the individual and the nation are inextricably intertwined, the line between them blurred. As suggested by philosophers of fascism ... the state is realized in the people and the people are realized in the state. It is a symbiotic relation. Individuals are realized in their manifestation of the national characteristics and by their participation in the national mission. In so doing, individuals are at once defined and valued, recognized and glorified. (p.12)

According to Rosenberg, right-wing populism accepts the primacy of "the people", but rejects liberal democracy's protection of the rights of minorities, and favors ethno-nationalism over the legal concept of the nation as a polity, with the people as its members; in general, it rejects the rule of law. All of these attributes, as well as its favoring of strong political leadership, suggest right-wing populism's fascist leanings. However, historian Federico Finchelstein in From Fascism to Populism in History states that "Properly historicized, populism is not fascism."

References

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: DO NOT ADD ANYTHING IN THIS SPACE - THIS SPACE IS FOR THE INITIATOR OF THE RFC TO MAKE THE STATEMENT THEY WISH TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON. ANY COMMENTS BY OTHER EDITORS SHOULD APPEAR ELSEWHERE.

Survey

• NOT UNDUE - The majority of the material is by a subject expert, a professor of Political Science and Psychology Science at UC Irvine who has been described as "one of the lions of the profession". [28]. It was presented as a paper at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychologists in Lisbon this summer, and will be published as a chapter in a forthcoming academic book. The paper has been discussed at WP:RSN, where the consensus was that it is a reliable source. [29]. The issue of right-wing populism's historical or ideological connection to or influence by fascism is a valid subject for this article.
  The question of whether the material is WP:UNDUE can only be determined by a consensus discussion, whereas what has been attempted up to now has been declaring it "UNDUE" by the fiat of a handful of editors. That is not acceptable, only WP:CONSENSUS can determine this, which this RfC can determine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• UNDUE. As another editor has said, the paper is new and already multiple editors are opposing its inclusion. Due to this I oppose the inclusion Victor Salvini (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• UNDUE This was extensively covered both in the RSN discussion as well as here. First, this section of the article is meant to be a general definition thus is should use a consensus view of the topic rather than devoting perhaps half the text of the section to the views of one of many who are writing about the subject. Also, it is worth noting that this paper was considered "Shocking" by another expert in the field, though I can't say if that applies to this exact section. In general for a "definition" we would expect to use something that is agreed upon by most in the field thus you would expect a work which is widely cited vs a new work with few citations. If there isn't a single consensus definition then we should show the conflicting definitions with DUE weight based on some level of acceptance among experts. This was a point Red Rock Canyon and Shinealittlelight made in the RSN discussion. If this work represents the view of a subset of experts or represents something other than a general definition then I would suggest, with editing for length, it may work in another part of the article. It certainly might represent how some experts see the linkage between 1930s fascism and modern right-wing populism. In short, it might have a place in this article but not as a "definition" and certainly not with that much text. Springee (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment @Buffs:, don't miss your cue, you're up next! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Your apparent implication of meatpuppetry is unnecessary. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• NOT UNDUE. Including diverse views on a subject is what neutrality is about, unless those views are FRINGE. I think such an extensive quote might have COPYVIO issues though.Thinker78 (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• UNDUE Per Springee. It might be worth citing in the article somewhere, but as a small part of a summary of scholarly views on this very complex and controversial topic. A brand new paper that diverges from other scholars should not be presented with such a huge block quote as the authority. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• UNDUE Right-wing populism originated in the 1980s with anti-immigration and anti-tax parties that had no roots in historical fascism. Subsequently some parties with roots in historical fascism have adopted right-wing populism. There are also parallels between inter-war fascism and modern populism. The proposed edit oversimplifies the connection and has the effect of maligning rather than explaining the topic, which is agitprop. TFD (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• So, you're substituting your own personal views regarding the history and nature of right-wing populism to say that the views of a subject expert are incorrect and should not appear in this article. A discussion about what is DUE and what isn't shouldn't be based on personal opinions, but on the nature and quality of the source, which this comment completely ignores. Obviously, whoever closes this RfC should ignore this non-policy WP:OR opinion, which effectively has no substance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• If you think so, then warshy's opinion should also be ignored as it's clear he's judging the validity of the claim and the wording rather than the actual weight that the passage is given in the article. My reading is that The Four Deuces is summarizing the majority view that scholars and historians have of right-wing populism's origin and suggesting that the attention given to Rosenberg's non-mainstream viewpoint is not befitting given the relative weight awarded to other interpretations covered in the definition section. I may be wrong, we both may be, but you should ask for clarification rather than attacking him. Why not focus on contributing valuable material rather than attempting to misconstrue and invalidate the views of other editors? Zortwort (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. We're here to decide if the analysis of a subject expert should be in the article. This is not a beauty content, nor is it a vote, it is a discussion to determine consensus. Such discussions must be based on policy, just as AfD's must be. So far, not a single "UNDUE" comment has been based on policy, they've ALL beern based on various versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:Original research. Such comments may make the commenter feel better, but they are not responsive to the questions asked, so they should be ignored by the closer as not policy-based. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• The "UNDUE" comments have been based on policy. I'm not going to re-iterate the policy-based arguments here again as they've been communicated over and over again here and in other talks. Also I don't want to divert discussion too far from the topic of this survey, but I'll say that it's quite uncivil to attack the opinions of other editors when they have been unclear rather than trying to elucidate how and whether their opinion is based in policy. Further, the closer will assess arguments himself and doesn't need you to tell him how to close. Zortwort (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• UNDUE I've expressed my opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard, also many others here have described the issues well. Too new and unrecognized a paper to have such a large amount of content that is only supported by it. Zortwort (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• NOT UNDUE The removed source presents a significant current academic perspective - that the rise of far-right populism and the resurgence of fascism are connected phenomena. Excluding this seems to be an issue of WP:NPOV violation by people who feel discomfited that politics they perceive as mainstream are tied to fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• UNDUE (all caps to fit in with the prior standard) Shinealittlelight summarized it effectively; no need to reiterate. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• NOT UNDUE The material ends with the correct note: "Properly historicized, populism is not fascism." However, the material is defining not populism in general, but right-wing populism, and one of the main attributes of current right-wing populism as having the will of the people subsumed or made irrelevant by the dictatorial will of the supreme leader is very close indeed to the historical views of western fascism prior to WWII. It is a very relevant social insight by an academic reliable source, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• UNDUE Putting in a content-free "swipe" by one of the opponents of populism isn't coverage by a source, it is a mere "swipe" by a combatant. Besides Undue, the material should be left out for various other reasons. Also, I consider this RFC to be fatally poorly formed because inevitably this RFC on the narrow undue topic (one of many potential reasons to leave this material out) is going to get mis-interpreted as an RFC on whether or not to exclude/include the material. This RFC should have been on the real question / disagreement which is whether or not to include the material. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent observation, especially as Beyond My Ken is already trying to find reasons to invalidate the comments of other editors under the pretense that they aren't explicitly referring to due-weight guidelines. Most can see that this ought to be an RfC about inclusion, anybody who feels it is both undue and problematic in other ways may have their opinion misconstrued. Zortwort (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest starting a neutrally-written RFC on the actual question which is: "should this material be included?" North8000 (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The author is a recognized academic subject expert, his analysis is not a "swipe" it is opinion informed by his expertise, which subject experts are allowed to have, and which we are allowed to use on Wikipedia. North8000's comment is a non-policy-based OR opinion and should be ignored by the closer. Only policy-based reasons should be acceptable; this one is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• His being an expert only establishes that the paper can be used as a source of facts, but inclusion of his opinions is a matter of weight, which requires that only views that are significant in the literature are mentioned. Obviously new theories in unpublished manuscripts have no weight. Only time will tell the degree of weight, if any, it is assigned in the literature. TFD (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Well. It is not clear to me how this would be undue or whatever. It's an academic, expert opinion, and *GASP* the connection between populism and fascism is nothing new (more below). However, this is as yet unpublished, and I would not want to cite something with "academia.edu" in the URL. (North8000, did I really just read this correctly: you don't want an RfC on the inclusion of the material, because the real matter is the inclusion of the material?) Drmies (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, no, I DO recommend an RFC on whether or not to include the material. North8000 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Undue and should be excluded per WP:LABEL, WP:NPOV, and frankly WP:RS. The US, Brazil, the UK, as well as several smaller countries, have all elected governments that are sometimes described as "right-wing populist." But from the lead of Fascism, we have the following: "Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties." The contrast with actual events in the US, the UK, and Brazil is sufficiently stark that the statement itself casts doubt on the reliability of the author and the journal. For example, the US is gearing up for 2020 elections, the US military budget is 3-4% of GDP, and so forth. Therefore, the statement itself casts doubt on the reliability of the source. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• NOT UNDUE: expert opinion, clearly relevant to the topic. A bit shorter would be better, however. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• UNDUE in a definition section for reasons already given by Springee and Shinealittlelight. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Neutral pointers to this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• I do not understand the problems editors have with including this expert opinion. Like all expert opinions it requires contextualizing (yeah, pros and cons, sure), but it attempts a definition, and BMK's text has a proper introduction. Yes, the matter is complicated, but the connection is drawn often enough--and problematized often enough. This expert's opinion is not an outlier, and commenters here might could read Jens Rydgren's The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right, or, if you like it short and to the point, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort (Chip Berlet, Matthew N. Lyons): "Fascism, in our usage, is the most virulent form of far-right populism". Or maybe this useful quote in From Fascism to Populism in History--the same book says "properly historicized, populism is not fascism", but no one said it was the same to begin with. Seriously, there are so many sources for this fairly obvious statement that opposing the inclusion of a paper saying this smacks of denialism--but it seems much easier to me to source such a genesis to already-published sources. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• The blockquote begins, "Guided by its roots in ideological fascism...." Before you say that its roots in fascism are a given, the article would need to explain what those roots are. We can't just plop observations into the article. TFD (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• @K.e.coffman: it's important to note that neither I, when I restored the content, nor BMK has ever argued against editing the block quote - in fact I was quite clear that I'd be open to changing how we use the source and only felt the content should remain in the article pending discussion, because I felt this might expedite coming to a consensus decision regarding how to use the source. Most of the arguments against any use of the source seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think your argument that others "don't like it" is a case of "I don't like" their arguments so I will say their arguments aren't based on anything other than "I don't like it". That was meant as a bit tongue in cheek but others aren't just saying they "don't like it". They are citing a number of reasons that are policy based. Also, NOCON and ONUS are both very clear, the burden is on those who want to include to come up with an acceptable version of the text, not those who aren't happy with the additions. Yes, it's better when those who object can do so with suggestions to fix things. However, that is harder in this case. I'm one of those who thinks this source may have a place in the article but it was added as a block quote to the definition section. I don't see an easy way to fix this addition in that section hence, remove and let those who want to include start over. Sure, you can say I'm "just not liking it" but that "dislike" is due to reasons like UNDUE and that it doesn't make for a better article. wp:IDONTLIKEIT says the augments are based purely on personal POV and not policy. Well DUE/UNDUE is policy so citing IDONTLIKEIT is either logically wrong or suggests that you think others don't understand WP:UNDUE or other policy/guidelines. You may not be convinced by their answers and might feel they are using DUE/UNDUE etc incorrectly but that isn't IDONTLIKEIT. Springee (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Since a majority of editors previously opposed the inclusion of the disputed section, let’s keep it removed while the RfC runs and then respect the outcome of said RfC whether it decides to keep or permanently remove the disputed section rather than continue this edit war. Is this a fair deal? Victor Salvini (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, Wikipedia doesn't operate by majority rule, it's not a democracy, it operates by WP:CONSENSUS, which you would do well to read. It also forbids editing to promote a personal point of view ({{WP:NPOV]], another policy you should read). Finally, you and Springee and Buffs ought to actually read WP:DUE, as it does not say what you think it does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, you don't get to exclude all use of a reliable source just because the information in it is "new". Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

People aren't arguing to blacklist the use of this source from the article. The valid concern was how it was added to a definition section. Many editors raised concerns about DUE. After a discussion with a number of editors there was no consensus for the change. Per WP:V, "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." Thus those wanting to make the change need to make the case for keeping a BOLD change. WP:V pointed to Consensus which says this about No Consensus, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Springee (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Excuse me, Wikipedia doesn't operate by majority rule, it's not a democracy... anyone else seeing immense irony?... Buffs (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• ...Buffs ought to actually read WP:DUE...

  Implying we don't know what we're talking about is inherently uncivil. Knock it off. Reasonable people can disagree on certain subjects and it's open to some interpretation. You have taken policy and guidelines so far out of their intended context in order to push a POV, it's a pretzel. Right at the beginning, WP:DUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources..." As this paper was unpublished, it should not be included... Buffs (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland

The statement "In 2015, the SVP received 29.4% of the vote, the highest vote ever recorded for a single party throughout Swiss parliamentary history" is obviously incorrect as can be seen here. However it is true for the proportional representation era in the National Council (since 1919). --Gbuvn (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Party

@Simonm223: - That wasn't WP:POINTed, since it was not intended to be a disruptive edit, but instead one aimed at finding a new consensus - removal of BP from the list - and is thus normal WP:BRD, particularly since the edit made that added the BP to the list was unsourced. Whether "right wing populism" applies to the BP has been extensively discussed on Talk:Brexit Party/Archive 1. Current consensus there appears to be that it should not be applied, hence why it's not on that article page. If you want to have a separate discussion here that's fine, but it's probably more appropriate for you to make a case on the BP's Talk page. I would also encourage you to add a source *here* for the claim.--Jay942942 (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That archive is massive, could you please help me find where in it this was discussed before? Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)