Jump to content

Talk:Populism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K8cpa (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 3 February 2011 (→‎Removed Link: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See also

I think a lot of the See also internal links need some explanation. I can understand why a list of populist parties or this or that variant or follower of populism, but the following keep me confused or wanting for more proofs:

  • Communitarianism (why partially related? Because it belives in returning power to civil society/the people? It would be needed some explaining of this in some section of this article? Like: Related ideologies and political philosophies)
  • Christian Democracy (maybe a reference to this or a comparison to this in the article would help to make this point clearer), Christian Socialism and Conservatism (all three with the same problem as communitarianism)
  • Cultural production and nationalism (why?)
  • Garibaldi and Mazzini (more data, maybe on a Italian populism subsection?)
  • I get Jacobin, but then maybe on the France subsection more on this should be written.
  • Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah (may be a new subsection on Indian and Pakistani populism with more on this?)
  • Liberation Theology (more on this connection should be on the Latin America subsection; we have to find good sources to see if this isn't better classified as marxist, christian socialist, christian communism, or part marxism, part liberalism or part socialism, part liberalism, or even as a mix of all this and populism, and where it is populist)
  • Nationalism (why? Because "People" may be the lower class (ence a connection to Socialism) or an ethnic group (ence Nationalism) or a group of individuals (ence a connection to Liberalism and Libertarianism)? As you see the meaning of people may lead towards many ideological paths. Or is the connection to nationalism made because many ultra-nationalists use scapegoting and ideas of anti-nationalist elites and invading foreign higher and lower class parasites? since not all nationalism is like that maybe a link to a subtype of nationalism more like that might be more recomendable)
  • Marxism is already enough argued on this article and this talk page, so waiting for a veredict if that should be there or not
  • Progressivism (anti-tectical with populism or just a (liberal? radical liberalist?) variant of populism who believes in state impulsed social progress? There's enough discussion on this discussion page and on the web to demand a bit on the article itself on this debate over the populist-progressivist connection)
  • Religious Left (one of those political philosophies whose connections with populism must be discussed in the article itself)
  • Social Democracy and Socialism (same problem as Marxism), maybe this should be put into the Related ideologies and political philosophies I proposed
  • Is Tatcherism here as anti-socialist-populism/anti-populist (as it is refered in the Latin America subsection subsubsection on left-wing socialist populism) or as a conservative right-wing national conservative libertarian neo-liberal/conservative market economy populism?
  • Union organisers and populism should be more discussed when defining populism and giving examples of it in the beggining of the article
  • Should Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto be here or a link to the populist party he created as the article on him doesn't talk that much on populism (or should we just add more on Bhutto's populism on the article on him)? Or maybe an internal link to Islamic Socialism (he was its main ideologue, and if you can find enough connection between this variant of socialism and populism why not)? Another hipothesis would be to add it to that possible Indian and Pakistani populism subsection I already suggested. Lususromulus (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these are good suggestions. However, I think the danger if one tries to include every possible type of populism from across the globe in specific subsections is that the article becomes unwieldy and a battleground for particular country viewpoints. I think the piece should focus on populism as a type of political discourse/pratice, using examples from specific cases to elucidate this, rather than focussing on specific instances of populism in specific countries.Giggsy72 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove all of those and possibly more. All they have in common is that they are also about politics. The Progressivism link might be kept though because late nineteenth century populism may have influenced early twentieth centuy progressivism in the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Giggsy27, but I didn't meant to add information on everyone of this articles, and might do well without a Pakistan or India subsection if something explaining why Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru should be here, but I personaly prefer something like this on most:

  • Marxism - [sugested possible connection]
  • Social Democracy - [sugested possible connection], etc., etc.

And only in parts were the subsection were they could be put already exists (Liberation Theology could be stuffed in the Latin American subsection, Jacobin on French subsection, Nationalist connection on the right-wing populism section, etc.). I may see the connection in some of them, but their not dead obvious and may be misleading if most scholars don't agre with them. About progressivism and populism, The Four Deuces: [1]. But I gess many other articles make them much more similar and less antitectical...so this discussion should be mildly refered. Well, this article does refer T.R.'s Progressive Party when discussing American populism but that could be just T.R.'s folksy progressivism with lots of "the people" speaches. And add another doubt to the list: Conservatism? Lususromulus (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The progressives were reformers who followed the populists, and shared some similarities (see: The Age of Reform). The Slate article uses the term populist to refer to the more demagogic, irrational aspects of populism. I said progressivism is the only link that might be kept, because it was one of the few that had any connection with populism. However the article would not suffer if that link were removed. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight Deuces, I don't disagree with keeping progressivism, I personaly agree to your notions on their historical linkage and similarities, but I think that so that the link doesn't seem out of the blue by the time we get to the See Also we should have some (at least minor) discussion on the article on the various views on the connection between both political philosophies. And yes, that article takes populism only on its more demagogic meaning, but it has a point if we put it in terms of populists (except socialist and anarchist populists) as prefering mob-guided social recociliation and regeneration over the change of society and state-guided progress of the progressivists. But in that sense the difference between populists and progressivists wouldn't be bigger than the one between reformist socialists and revolutionary socialists, and as such they can kind of be put into the same school (according to some text I can't recall now which was it, populism and ence its derivation progressivism are just derivations of Pragmatism/Pragmaticism. Lususromulus (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I said it might be kept, not should be kept, then I said the the article would not suffer if it were removed. My only point was that it was one of the few links that had any possible connection with populism (no matter how weak). The Four Deuces (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're having a problem of communication: we both see the connection between both currents, and I agree with your original point that the link should be kept in the see also, but I ADD to your comment that a small discussion and more info on the connection between both should be added in the article itself so that by the time we get to the see also it's apearance doesn't look so out of the blue, that's it, I'm not criticising your positions on this link, just proposing aditions/improvements to the article. Lususromulus (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal:

  • Black populism
  • Bolivarian Revolution
  • Charismatic authority
  • Demagogy — as an abstract kind of untruthful speech
  • Fascism
  • Far right probably deleted (there is non-fascist/non-nazi/non-radical right populist parties and movements who escape the populist mold)
  • Gaullism
  • Jacobin (politics)
  • Jim Hightower
  • José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia (don't know how populist he is)
  • Kemalist ideology (Kemalism)
  • Liberation theology maybe deleted
  • List of revolutions and rebellions probably deleted
  • Nationalism maybe replaced by ultra-nationalism or deleted
  • Nazism
  • Neo-populism
  • Orator
  • People's Party
  • Poujadism
  • Producerism
  • Progressivism
  • Right-wing populism
  • Sarkozy keep if we refer it a bit in the French populism subsection
  • Social Democracy, Socialism probably deleted
  • Thatcherism has to be clarified if it represents anti-left-populism or right-wing populism
  • Union Organizer needs clarification
  • Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto needs clarification Lususromulus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.21.65 (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The connection should be made but to be honest the article seems to need a lot of work. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Populist Party disambiguation page

I think that instead of Populist Party redirecting to Populism, it should redirect to a new Populist Party disambiguation page, something like this: Populist Party may refer to:

Good idea. But include Populism in the list too. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, something like:

Populist Party refers to a party that pratices or claims to practice a political philosophy called Populism, that practices populist rethorical or political methods, or does both. Populist Party may refer to:

Yes, you should change it. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Lususromulus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.21.65 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GERMANY

I think this section should be drastically changed or deleted: 1. Obviously written by a non-native speaker, the text is dark and confusing (Jahn "introduced the Volkstum"? Most sentences are painfully constructed.). 2. It's not about populism as such, but a short (and confused) introdcution to German nationalism. There are of course relations between the two, but it's not the same. 3. There still are factial errors: p.e., Jahn was neither a minister nor a professor. 62.47.62.217 (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. Almost all of the individual country accounts are poor. I think that up until "styles and methods" this page is good. Then it becomes an incoherent rambling mess. At some point, I would like to tidy it up. But it will be a big (and inevitably controversial) job. Giggsy72 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone

I don't mean to be too critical about this, but I don't know any other way to say it. This article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry the way it is currently written.

It reads like an argument between students in a sociology class.

Although I am not familiar enough with the subject to rewrite it, I will assume that there are facts and figures and dates and definitions pertaining to the subject. If they are in this article they are lost in the convoluted prose.

In any field you can get lost in the jargon. If it is your own field of study it can be a fun exercise. But that is not what you need for an encyclopedia article. You need something that the average literate person can understand.

In my own case, I came looking for information, as I frequently do with Wikipedia, but I got nothing from the article I can use. This is the first Wikipedia article where I have had that experience.

I would suggest cutting anything that looks like anyone's unsubstantiated opinion and then take a look at what is left. Franklinjefferson (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus wasn't a populare (pov)

And he didn't go "over the senate's head". He was already master of Rome by then.

The populares ended with Julius Caesar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.102.206 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct but is there any sign that Augustus when still Octavian and not a cesar had views of Populare influence (a kind of Populare-ism after the populares disaperance)? If there is we should alter the article section in this direction.

Bias in US Section

The U.S. section of this article is full of statements like, "It was fitting, perhaps, that the unelected, irremovable, life-tenured U.S. Supreme Court would be the agent of resistance, in 1995 striking down all the congressional term limits enacted by the people." Because of this, that section has a major NPOV problem. 74.170.70.193 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Section is erratic and does not have a strong sense of chronology or events in the populist movement. 150.250.212.227 (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class Struggle

Class struggle vrs. jingoistic racism

Populism is broad, w many paints on its pallete ;) Sam Spade 07:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did some research, and your more right than I thiought about the racism bit. It is a theme sometimes, but not so often as class struggle. Sam Spade 08:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
answers.com/Populism is very informative, and needs to be incorporated into the article, esp the content from houghton mifflin. Sam Spade 08:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One half of a discussion is simply surreal. Could folks please post the other half? --Cberlet 12:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Houghton Mifflin text was written by Lawrence Goodwyn, author of Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America. Goodwyn tells half the story and paints a rosy picture of populism that has been sharply challenged by Canovan, Kazin, and others. Yes, the pluralist school gave populism a bad rap. But Goodwyn and others, in criticizing the Hofstadter crowd's view, went too far toward the other side. A balanced article here will include all three analytical models. To stop with Goodwyn would leave off 20 years of new research that seeks a more balanced approach to populism--seeing both the bad and the good.--Cberlet 12:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I should hope you didn;'t think I wasproposing we scrap all other sources in favor of Houghton Mifflin. Rather, I felt it had many points to offer which arn't to be found here at present. Sam Spade 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. But who are you talking to above? What was the other half of the discussion?--Cberlet 03:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have a look at the edit history, I was discussing edits which had been recently made. Not worth worrying yourself over. My point still stands about the houghton mifflin content @ answers.com/Populism being pretty excellent, and worth finding its way into the article. I think we need to make it clear in the article that this word means rather different things to different people, rather than being some sort of objective term. Sam Spade 18:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Class Struggle? Not!

Populism is the antithesis of class stuggle. Class struggle is a Marxist concept. Marxists are critical of populists because populists do NOT engage in class struggle. See, for example, Laclau, Ernesto. 1977. Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism. London: NLB/Atlantic Highlands Humanities Press. In this book Laclau illustrates how Marxism shapes a critique of Capitalism, Fascism, and Populism. Some Marxists argue that fascism is a militant form of right-wing populism.--Cberlet 00:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be argued that Fascism is merely a nationalized variation of Marxism and as such a militant reform socialism. Populism is not bound to any particular ideology since it is not an ideology but an "approach". Populism can be claimed to be deeply tied in Marxism - especially Marxism in its early days. The rise of the Working Class is an obvious example of populism on the left. 83.92.119.42 06:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marxists are critical of other populists because of the need to consolidate "the people" under their populist banner alone, or else no global revolution is possible (thus the split between Nazi germany and soviet russia). Marxists will naturally argue that marxism has nothing to do with fascism, because fascism has a negative connotation. And, of course, controlling the way information is discussed is necessary to all ideologies, marxism maybe most of all. Information control, or the attempt thereof, is a clear hallmark of populists. Populism, demagoguery and Ideology are all pieces of the same puzzle.

As far as class struggle, since marxism cannot actually change class structure unless by the imposition of a tyrrany, which merely substitutes one class structure for another, marxism functions purely as a narrative to aggregate power to those who lead its advocacy. That is, Marxism is at core populist, demagogic, and ideological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.229 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Populism is not Marxism but Marxism would be, if it (Marxism) were a scientific enterprise, the scientific expression of Populism. Populism advocates the interests of the classes lower than ruling elites and Marxism advocates the destruction of the situation where there are such lower classes. The real existing gap between the two is the subject of this thread, and should include desire of some in the lower classes to preserve the class structure. There is a fairly large body of material which can be accessed on this topic. To the extent that Marxism is that expression, the failure of the one is the failure of the other. See also false consciousness. Marxism is not solely about class struggle but the latter is central to it until the point at which it overturns it at which point it must show how much more it is about. The record here is full of tragic mistakes but that is the nature of human historical development and it's not nearly as bad as partisans of the ideological moeity above portray.The failures of Marxism are primarily in its application as a theory and praxis for social organization (which it isn't) not as one for accomplishing the goals of class struggle and Populism (which it is). The failures in the former have, and probably will continue to feed back into failures in the latter.

I adjusted the entries above for indentation and consolidated this thread. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strength and current socialist tendency

Performed requested copyedit on this § 72.228.150.44 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting "Populism in the Obama Era"

Either we should create a section for each example of populism in US history, or we should keep it under one single heading. The populism under the obama administration is not any more notable than any other trends of populism. If anyone changes this back, please explain why the Obama administration deserves it's own special place and the rest do not. Steelersfan7roe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I cannot find any verifiable source that describes the tea party as a populist movement. I'm taking it out until someone can find proper verification. Steelersfan7roe (talk)

next time try google which has this lovely story as the first hitNPR on the search string tea party populism TMLutas (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Populism in 2010

the theme of populism in the 2010 elections has been widely commented upon by many experts, with both the Republicans and the Democrats using anti-elitist themes. Indeed there is probably more populism and 2010 been in the last half century. Maybe Goldwater in 1964 can compare, but in 2010 both the Republicans and Democrats are hammering hard, as the summary of the campaign in the New York Times demonstrates:

"In the last weeks of the campaign, he hammered away at the gusher of secret money poured in by special interests to influence the outcome of the elections, arguing in effect that the elites of Wall Street and corporate America were trying to hoodwink everyday voters into casting ballots against their own interests to benefit the powerful. The other side’s central economic plan, he tells virtually every audience, is to extend tax cuts for the rich." [cite: Peter Baker, "Elitism: The Charge That Obama Can’t Shake," New York Times Oct, 30, 2010 Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As this is material you've tried to place in several articles, I think it would be best to wait for consensus on this talk page before adding such recent material to a general encyclopedia article. As per WP:BRD, as you have boldly added and been reverted, discussion and consensus should come next.

Did you mean to start this discussion at the end of thread that's been closed for almost four months? If not, feel free to move all of our comments to a new section. Dayewalker (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dayewalker perhaps can be bold enough to tell us why he disagrees with the NY Times?? Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum ad epithetum

Is Geert Wilders fairly described as a populist and can he fairly be lumped together with the bit of everything in this article? It maybe is fair to say that his party is critical of the existing political establishment, and is of the opionion that there is a conflict of interest between the existing political establishment and the public. But wouldn't any opposition to the ruling political parties would be critical of the ruling parties and their establishment. Any public choice theorist would strongly argue that there is a conflict of interest between the political class and the citizens. Any classical liberal class theorist, or marxist class theorist, would argue that there is such a conflict of interest between the governed and governing class. Probably it is fair to say that Geert Wilders party appeals to the citizens of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but like any other political party! Populist appeals is common to all political movements in a democracy. That's a self evident fact, isn't it? So what has Geert Wilders done to deserve this epithet? What's the distinguishing and important difference? Why is he lumped together with a bit of everything? How can this organization and categorization of political phenomena under such epithets even be justified? Is it pure manipulative political poetry, or is it something based on facts, that really informs us on political phenomena? --88.91.29.41 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The populist view is that the cleavages between established parties are not the result of ideological, class, regional or religious divisions, but that they represent the interests of the party elites and therefore the other parties are basically the same, hence the need to form a new party that represents the people, and the use of referenda, term limits, and re-calls so that the politicians cannot thwart the will of the people. Charismatic leadership and concentration on a narrow range of issues is also typical. There is a lot of literature about "right-wing populism.[2] TFD (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not the theory of either Mussolini and fascism or Hitler and national socialism, so this can't be "it". But if it is "it", then this opinion is the opinion of adherents of public choice theory. And if it really is true that Geert Wilders has a similar view as the public choice theorists as you say, then why not lump him together with them? Why use "populism" to lump his views together with a bit of everything ad epithetum, rather than saying that Geert Wilders is an adherent of public choice theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.29.41 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is how he is described in academic literature. Whether or not that is correct is not something that we should determine. TFD (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Definition of Populism is flat wrong

Every time I come to Wikipedia I find it amazing how far from reality this site twists things. But just the definition of populism itself at the top of the page has got to be wrong.

Lets take this point here:
"It may also be due to linguistic confusions of populism with terms such as "popular"" 

Then scalars changed the definition to fit what they like.

I am sorry but populism is exactly what it sounds like politicians and political ideology that moves with the winds of what is popular at the time. I mean really how difficult is this?

Or am I 100% off and my word should be called "Popularism"
--OxAO (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the Latin populus, meaning the people (cf. population). Populists thought that the mainstream parties represented class interests and they organized parties to represent the people, which is seen by the name of their party, the People's Party. Because they were anti-elitist, populism today usually means an appeal to the common man against the elites, which tends sometimes to be a popular appeal. TFD (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh population. Then what is the word for an ideology that is based on what is popular at the time?
--OxAO (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Political opportunism and Demagogy, although they are not ideologies because they are not belief systems. TFD (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge. -- TFD (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Social populism into this article. The term social populism is a neologism and editors have been unable to find reliable sources. Any relevant information in that article should be included under Populism. TFD (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yepp. With so many citation-needed and OR-tags after two months, there probably isn't much to merge anyways. Whatever is suitable should just go here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I made a similar comment on its (Social Populism's) talk page. I've made contributions and/or comments relevant to this, i.e. the relation between "socialism" and "populism" (perhaps as Lycurgus) but it's been a while. The relation between "socialism" and "populism" is the right thing, "social populism" is the brain fart. Agree with TFD. Perhaps it just needs to be deleted because although there's plenty of material on the relation between socialism and populism, if that's not the content of the merge source then it is more likely just a candidate for deletion as OR. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, see that I do have commentary in the threads above (as 72.228.150.44), which would be what I was referring to. 72.228.177.92 (talk)
Reversed unexplained deletion of this thread. The merge proposal may fail to carry but you don't just delete a discussion you haven't even engaged in without an explanation. Lycurgus (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found sources for the term, i would oppose a merger and ask for a few weeks to work on the article mark nutley (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are always free to develop a copy in your sandbox. We can even move it there, complete with its history, so it gets out of main soace in its current state. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m good with that if consensus is for merger mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
mark nutley,on Social populism talk-page I showed that your spurces for the term "Social Populism" have nothing to do with the article Social Populism as it stands, and are eventually non-notable. The article on Social Ppopulism certainly has to be deleted at once, because it has no sense at all (indeed, it lacks a single sourced definition for its main theme) -please see Talk:Social populism. however, if there is some material pertinent to this article, it surely can be merged here. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religion

Isn't a romantic idea driven by anxiety. I would like to see a few sources that claim that such a thing was inspired by romanticism in the industrial revolution. If you think about it, religion and romanticism are often at odds due to the real-life principles and traditions in religion vs highly exaggerated "everything is beautiful' romanticism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Latin America Section

Refers to populism being good for having directed radical energy into non-radical policy. Perhaps a valid analysis, but not neutral, and certainly not the universal view.

There was a link to a blog called "The Populist."

That was my old Blog, from back when I was a historic populist. I've long since left that mode of thinking. I am now a Paleo-Conservative.

Just letting everyone know. :)

-Patrick

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Populism&oldid=411827867"