Talk:Right-wing populism

RfC: Inclusion of specific material in the article

The following material is currently in this article:

===Cultural issues and immigration===

While immigration is a common theme at the center of many national right-wing populist movements, the theme often crystallizes around cultural issues, such as religion, gender roles, and sexuality, as is the case with the transnational anti-gender theory movements. A body of scholarship has also found populist movements to employ or be based around conspiracy theories, rumors, and falsehoods. Some scholars argue that right-wing populism's association with conspiracy, rumor and falsehood may be more common in the digital era thanks to widely accessible means of content production and diffusion. These media and communication developments in the context of specific historical shifts in immigration and culturalpolitics have led to the association of right-wing populism with post-truth politics.

Should this material remain in the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Note: Initial discussion about this material took place in the previous section, #18 May IP edits.

Survey

• Yes - The material is reliably sourced, extremely germane to the subject -- in fact, vital to understanding it -- and does not in any way violate WP:WEIGHT. It should remain in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why this is vital to understanding the topic? Springee (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but not quite in this form. The individual points are valid and well-sourced, but they don't have anything to do with immigration. The "Cultural issues and immigration" heading and the lead-in with immigration as the subject confusingly imply all this material is about cultural issues that have something to do with immigration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Not as written There is a consensus to use some of this content in the article (see long discussions above). The issue is, as proposed, it is inserting near copy paste [1] of what a COI IP [2] editor added. (IP editor's original add [3], what BYM added right down to copying an unrelated sentence from the lead [4]) The Harsin citations are self promoting rather than showing actual WEIGHT for inclusion. The subsection header makes no sense as the content isn't about immigration at all. After removing claims sourced solely to Harsin we are left with one sentence sourced to several authors. As The_Four_Deuces notes in the discuss above, it isn't clear if these are sources about RWP or sources about misinformation. To clearly establish weight for inclusion in this article they should ideally be sources about RWP. Still, as a compromise I would propose keeping that sentence and integrating it into the paragraph above. Additionally, we can review some of the other sources in the above discussions and see if they could add an additional sentence or two. Even with the Harsin sources this shouldn't be a stand alone paragraph. Springee (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The wording is almost appropriate. It should be improved further. E.g. Is the term "transnational" necessary or perhaps pedantic? This is not about a specific country and the article makes that clear immediately. Even more importantly, more sources are needed, while the references should include quotes and, when they're books or articles in journals, page numbers. This is a politically controversial subject, where terminology is part of the ideological battle, and, so, we must make completely certain that we're putting up text from sources. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• No. The section doesn't look like the result of analysis of entire sources, for example citation [4] is to https://books.google.ca/books?id=TzNhKmOATHkC&q=populiste+complot+droite&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=populiste%20complot%20droite&f=false which seems to show a result of googling, and not referring to the Routledge book text. I'll withdraw the objection if 83.195.7.101 explains well. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, per BMK. Informative and well-sourced. Andre🚐 16:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  BMK didn't actually provide evidence of their claims. BMK's actions also suggest that the following sentence was due in the section as they added/restored it 3 times, "American businessman and media personality Donald Trump won the 2016 United States presidential election after running on a platform that included right-wing populist themes." (added/restore [5][6][7]) Springee (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Springee (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• • • You are mistaken. When the sentence was brought to my attention, I deleted it, as you very well know. Also, that sentence is not cited above as part of the RfC, so your comment is not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  So clearly you haven't been following the talk page discussions if 18 June [8] is the first time you were "aware" of the issue. Looking at the discussion that lead to this RfC I see I mentioned it in May (19th, 20th, 21st) and when I made edits reflecting group consensus on 17 June. If you were really carefully considering this addition vs just blindly restoring it why didn't you remove it the first, second or third time said it was a problem with the edit? You are correct, it's not part of the paragraph you quoted. However, it's hard to assume those sources or that paragraph was picked with any consideration vs was just blindly restoring the IP's edit given you didn't catch that you had copied the Trump sentence from the lead. Springee (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Avoids the main question (invited by the bot) Of course for statements that say "one person said this" (and similar) it's easy to source the claim that one person said that. That mis-defines the real question which is "should it be in the article? North8000 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand. The question I posed and asked for comments on is "Should this material remain in the article." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  My mistake; sorry! 00:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not as written It's an entire paragraph with many different things in it some fine, some not. "Association with" type statements are a blank check for POV cherry picking. E.G. info about the talking points of political opponents rather than info about the subject. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Improperly worded RfC Does not follow Statement should be neutral and brief: "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short." It provides an example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" TFD (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• The statement ("This exists, should it remain?") is neutral, and, in and of itself, brief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  The 64 word excerpt is not brief. It's also not neutral, because there is no dispute that the article should mention "cultural issues and immigration," but whether your sources are adequate for a discussion of conspiracism. TFD (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems to presume you can provide examples of explicitly "briefer" and "more neutral" statements. Let's see. DN (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but not as written...As most others seem to have pointed out, some of the sources may have potential to improve the article but the wording and placement requires some collaboration. I have tried to encourage this, as I think there is some value in not just inclusion but also the process. DN (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Here are some sources that explore the existing relationship between conspiracy theories and populism, with a few specifically mentioning RWP. - - - - ...DN (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  My objection was never that there were no papers making a connection, but you have not shown that their research has gained any attention in the body of literature about rw populism. Maybe Also, populism and rw populism are different concepts. Note that your first source begins by discussion of Hugo Chavez, who considered himself a socialist and was not considered to be a rw populist. TFD (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Sure - If the choice was between preserving as-is and removing completely, I would choose preserving. Of course there is plenty of room for improvement, same as always. The connection between right-wing populism and conspiracy theories is significant per many reliable sources and should be included. Organizationally, it makes sense to put this under 'cultural issues' but how immigration fits into this is not properly explained yet. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Note this is recently added content by an IP editor that is likely a COI editor. Springee (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes in some form per my comments above. There is plenty of coverage to support the idea that conspiratorial thinking is a core feature of right-wing populism, at least sufficient for it to be covered in the body; I don't think it's reasonable to argue that it can be excluded entirely. There's possibly room to improve the sourcing and wording but there's already enough sourcing to say something. --Aquillion (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unbalanced and therefore POV. I won't say those statements aren't true by themselves but they're only part of the story. Right-wing populists have a wide, varying range of concerns. The stuff in the paragraph misses many populists' motivations. This lack of balance and nuance leaves readers misinformed.

In the predominantly Mexican American, Roman Catholic, increasing Republican Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, people are worried about:

• • Local government and nonprofit services are getting overwhelmed
  • The impact of what I'd call "benign trespassing" - more or less innocent migrants littering and relieving themselves (because they don't have anyplace else to go), leaving pasture gates open. People sneaking through their yards at all hours of the night, no matter how innocent is creepy and wearisome.
  • The proven criminality and violence of the people smugglers moving them

I got an earful when visiting newly Republican, Hispanic in-laws in McAllen, Texas last year. They don't see the migrants themselves as bad people. Racism, gender issues, sexuality, etc. just don't apply to their concerns. "Transnational anti-gender theory" didn't come up once. These are practical people.

Xenophobia: many are dual nationals with family on both sides of the river: "We were here before there was a border". In different times, teenagers swam to each others' homes for parties.

Stereotyping real ant-immigration concerns and ignoring such stuff as the above cost Democrats a lot of votes in South Texas -- so exclusive focus on stuff in that paragraph has real world consequences.

Elsewhere in parts of the US South, poor and lower middle class people have legitimate economic concerns. Notwithstanding what think tanks say, their lived experience is that construction and casual labor jobs don't pay what they used to and working conditions are worse. Immigrants will work harder and for less money; if they complain, they get reported to ICE and deported.

No college faculty member ever had to compete with an undocumented immigrant for a job.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like original research, and a WP:FALSEBALANCE to boot. Andre🚐 17:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Andre, this is an RfC. We're asked to comment. I commented. I wasn't asked or prepared to bring refs. Original research it certainly is. False balance it's not. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

An RFC is a discussion, not a vote. We'll need reliable sources, and not original thoughts to consider, otherwise your argument will lack relevant weight. So consider this a request for support for your claim. Andre🚐 18:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no such rules or standards for talk pages or RFC responses. North8000 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines and best practices for talk pages and RFC responses are the same as the guidelines and best practices elsewhere. I did not say, "your message broke the rules," I asked for some evidence of the apparently original claims about think tanks and the "concerns" of "people." Which people? Where were those concerns attested to? Those are valid questions. Andre🚐 22:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Your first sentence was too vague to respond to. On your second sentence, of course you did not make such an explicit claim, you merely implied that non-existent standards/rules exist. And you implied illegitimacy of the post based on non-existent standards. And you final sentence (rewording of your original post) is of course fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The post made a bunch of assertions absent any evidence and based on admitted anecdata and original research. On this talk page and in an RFC, the goal is to have a constructive discussion on the changes to make to the article. That is why my response was relevant. I questioned the relevance of the anecdotes related as they appeared to be based on speculation and hearsay. I did not say anything about standards or rules or legitimacy, despite your mischaracterization of my statement. Instead of putting words in my mouth, we could be having a constructive argument about the validity, or lack thereof of the meandering assertions about migrants, so-called real Americans, teenagers, stereotypes, and speculation as to what may or may not have cost people votes. Those aren't rational basis for an RFC view on NPOV. It deserves to be called out. You are not simply entitled to your opinion, if it just an opinion. That's not what we're doing here. So I asked for any basis for the argument, and it still lacks any. I did not mention anything about "standards" at all. Andre🚐 04:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There's more where these came from:

• Medina, Jennifer (28 February 2022). "How Immigration Politics Drives Some Hispanic Voters to the G.O.P. in Texas (Published 2022)". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 August 2023.
• Edginton, Steven (8 October 2022). "Texas's Hispanic voters turn to Republicans over Mexico border concerns". The Telegraph. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 4 August 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not generally object to either of these sources, although the 2nd source does not mention right-wing populism that I can tell. There might be WP:DUE weight to mention a sentence or two about this, additional to the other disputed text above, but I do not see how this refutes the disputed text in question. I will also point out that the NYT post is clear that, Republicans in the Rio Grande Valley remain a minority.[...]. But Democrats still dominate the vast majority of local elected offices in the Valley. So this trend, while legitimate, is not the majority of right-wing populists nor is there a significant story in Texas relative to say, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and the heart of Rust Belt America that mostly the sources have focused on. Andre🚐 20:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel a need to stick South Texas in that paragraph. I just want a more balanced paragraph. I don't even necessarily need all of what's there taken out.

I brought up South Texas as an example of the complexities, nuance and balance missing in the paragraph I commented on. The one-sidedness of the paragraph. South Texas was the first thing that came to mind. I got jumped on there about immigration like I did here, just from the other side of the argument.

Then I got called to task for inappropriate comments here for not bringing citations with me. Yikes! Who knew some of us need refs for an opinion in talk space.

So I came up with citations to defend myself.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote and can discuss in more detail if you wish but more likely it's time to just wish you the best and move on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"their lived experience is that construction and casual labor jobs don't pay what they used to and working conditions are worse" Big surprise there, A. B. The average Misery index (economics) during Joe Biden's term in office is 9.77, indicating relatively high inflation and unemployment. The only presidential terms with worse economic conditions for the average American citizen since 1948 have been the terms of Jimmy Carter (misery average of 16.26), Gerald Ford (average 16.00), Ronald Reagan (average 12.19), George H. W. Bush (average 10.68), and Richard Nixon (average 10.57). Dimadick (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but, the "economic anxiety theory of right-wing populism"[9], seems to overlook the topic of the discussion. Yes, there is an economic anxiety element, but white supremacy, racism, and the like are at the root of Trumpism. And I think that's what is being skirted around or overlooked in this discussion. In fact, as you point out, ironically enough, there isn't a recession.[10] Andre🚐 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Additional discussion

Note: Initial discussion about this material took place in the previous section, #18 May IP edits, which should be consulted.

• Comment I have repeated asked for an article about right wing populism that says it is a major component. I could not find it mentioned in the writings of the main experts on the topic, such as Hans-Georg Betz, Cas Mudde and Pippa Norris and in the U.S. Chip Berlet. Without that, we cannot assess its significance to the topic.

In comparison, I could find an reliable sources about American cheese, but that does not mean it deserves a section in the article about the U.S. You would have to show that it is significant to the main topic.

TFD (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Second this concern. This seems to be a simple baseline for what is included in an article that is meant to be a broad overview of the topic. Springee (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Why does the text starting from "A body of scholarship ..." belong to the Cultural issues and immigration section, even assuming that it's significant? Alaexis_¿question? 08:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The following sentence isn't supported by the sources: "A body of scholarship has also found populist movements to employ or be based around conspiracy theories, rumors, and falsehoods." The first source used is about American populism from the 1930s. Whether or not this is the same phenomenon as the right-wing populism that was observed to have begun in Western Europe in the 1980s (the topic of this article) needs to be established.The other two sources are just word searches in two books for populism+right-wing+conspiracy theory. The fact that the three terms occur in a sames book does not mean that the authors are connecting them. TFD (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• That raises a serious issue with the whole section. Most of the content is sourced only to material written by Harsin (who appears to be associated with the IP addresses that have added references to his work across Wikipedia). If the other sources don't support Harsin's claims (right or wrong) then this is a body of claims sourced only to a single author rather than a consensus of experts in the field. Harsin's objectives here seem largely to tie this topic to the Post Truth Politics article. The PTP article heavily cites works by Harsin and those additions were made by IP editors (including the one who originally added the disputed content here) [11],[12],[13][14]. So the editor who says this content is due is an editor who seems to have an interest in spamming their own work on Wikipedia but fails to understand concepts like WP:V. Springee (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Harsin's article, "The Rumour Bomb: Theorising the Convergence of New and Old Trends in Mediated US Politics," which is cited several times, makes no mention of right-wing populism or even populism or rignt-wing politics, although all the examples are from the right. It mentions misinformation provided by both the campaign of George W. Bush and John McCain, neither of whom are conceivably populists. In fact (it was written pre-Trump), it makes no mention of populists in general, such as Perot, Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson.

This raises the question of what the connection between conspiricism and rw populism is. Is it something they share equally with other ideologies, or only those on the right? How do they differ? Is it an essential part of their ideology or something used opportunistically? That's why articles by communications experts are not the best source.

TFD (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

"It mentions misinformation provided by both the campaign of George W. Bush and John McCain" Where do you see such criticism concerning McCain's campaign? Harshin's article mentions Anti-Arabism in recorded statements by "McCain supporters" during the 2008 United States presidential election. It does not mention any misinformation operation by either McCain or his supporters. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have summarized the article differently. I don't understand how one can promote anti-Arabism without misinformation, but that's not the point of my comments. The article makes no mention of rw populism and instead focuses on mainstream politicians and their supporters. TFD (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this RfC has been posted on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Section on Right-wing populism in the UK

None of these sources are opinion pieces; nor is there any reason to believe anything they're saying is disputed; nor is there any reason to think their perspectives are marginal. The sourcing for this section is higher-quality than the rest of the article, at this point; no valid reasons have been given to entirely remove it. If someone thinks there are better ways to word it, propose alternate wordings; if they think there are other sources that disagree with those, indicate them. But we have decent academic sources backing every point, sometimes multiples for key points, all of them stating these things as simple fact; it would be inappropriate to represent this as mere opinion, let alone to remove it entirely when it is so well-cited. I could understand tagging or rewording, but the sweeping way the entire section has been removed multiple times is baffling - these are entirely unexceptional statements cited to high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

They are the subjective opinion of their authors, and not incontrovertible fact, and WP:YESPOV is clear, Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

These are not subjective opinions; rather, they are evidence-backed analyses that elucidate a political phenomenon in the UK. Your assertion is incorrect. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide the quotes from the Popple piece cited from Populism, Democracy and Community Development that you think supports In the Conservative Party, Thatcherism had right-wing populist elements, including nationalism and social conservatism as an incontrovertible fact then. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable summary of the chapter as a whole, but if anything it honestly downplays the source's conclusions, particularly by omitting race and class. The source says that The right-wing populism that Thatcher fed on was typical of approaches by such leaders; it had signifiers primarily based on race and class, and where people and communities were turned against each other and, in its conclusion to the section, that ...we can see that through the years a racist discourse has been a strong element in right-wing British populism. From Oswald Mosley’s 1930s anti-Semitic oratory and leading marches of his ‘Blackshirts’ followers through communities where Jews lived, to the anti- immigrant racial superiority rhetoric of Enoch Powell, and then Thatcher’s use of terms such as ‘swamped’ in regard to non-white immigrants, we can identify powerful threads of excluding people on the basis of skin colour, and differences in culture, language and religion. Non-white immigrants were presented as unwanted and harmful, although any referenced understanding of how capitalism operates shows that a country’s immigrants have provided a powerful engine for economic and social change and a valuable resource in the labour market. The 'swamped' quote is emphasized in a similar way in Tournier-Sol, which says that The authoritarian conservatism of Thatcher allowed her to occupy the political space which had been left to the National Front in the 1970s. Her famous declaration in the run-up to the 1979 general election testified to the repositioning of the Conservative party: “People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture. (…) If you want good race relations, you have got to allay peoples’ fears on numbers. (…) We do have to hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration.”. I suspect that "nationalism" in our article is being used as a more nuanced way to say "anti-immigration" (especially, as the first source says, opposition to the immigration of nonwhites), in that context. We could reword it to reflect those sources more closely rather than summarizing, I suppose. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the additional term "social conservatism" is not supported by the sources cited, and that one of their sources McSmith 2013 gives her a mixed record on policies and rhetoric that would be considered socially conservative. The significant ones are in race-baiting and nationalism, which I think is adequately expressed by the term "nationalism", especially in the context of "right-wing populism". (Keep in mind McSmith makes serious omissions in this piece to paint Thatcher in a worse light, particularly on unemployment numbers.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the summarising of subjective opinions is fraught with the danger that the summarising author's own opinions and agenda will influence the summary too. That is even more reason to avoid trying to present these sources as support for controversial assertions of fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Opinions, even of academics, do not support assertions of facts. That is straightforward logic. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

So digging down a bit, we find that the Mamonova and Franquesa source used to support this, in which the only paragraph discussing Thatcherism is introduced as their "third argument" (i.e. personal opinion), relies on, what they call an "interpretation of the rise of Thatcherism" (so 'interpretation', i.e. personal opinion) from a book by Stuart Hall. And Hall is described in their Wiki article as a "Marxist sociologist, cultural theorist, and political activist". Hence we are asserting the personal opinion on Thatcherism of a Marxist sociologist, cultural theorist, and political activist, in Wiki's voice, as if fact.

That is unacceptable in many ways, including the gross WP:NPOV violation I mention from the WP:YESPOV section above. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you believe the section of the Mamonova and Franquesca source to which you refer is personal opinion? Why do you think the Stewart Hall monograph is offering a personal opinion? Are you aware of any competing RS account of Thatcherism that conflicts with Hall's, in some way that is relevant to this article? We are not supposed to present undisputed characterizations of facts or historical figures as attributed opinions, which is what you seem to be proposing here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

These are subjective opinions, there is no black and white with these characterisations and categorisations. I'm not proposing we include them at all, I'm proposing we remove them as failing WP:NPOV, at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no "bright line" distinguishing "subjective opinions" from "facts". In general, observations about which WP:HQRS are in universal agreement must be presented in wikivoice - to do otherwise would be the NPOV fail, and seems to be what you are proposing in this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't state the observations as facts, it credits them as their "third argument" (i.e. personal opinion) and a supporting source as an "interpretation of the rise of Thatcherism" (i.e. more personal opinion). That doesn't sound like there's "universal agreement" on this to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

First, please list and preferably link to the specific source being referenced, along with the page number to which you are referring. At a certain point if it's too much of a hassle to figure out what you mean, people will just ignore you. Second, Marxist sociology is a quite common method in sociology (as well as literary, art, and cultural criticism, among many other things). It's independent of, and does not imply the sociologist/critic is sympathetic to, Marxist politics. Third, your logic is odd: unless source A is directly quoting without qualification from source B's statement of opinion, there is no transitive property relating source A to B. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There is only one Mamonova and Franquesca source currently cited in the article:

• Mamonova, Natalia; Franquesa, Jaume. "Populism, Neoliberalism and Agrarian Movements in Europe. Understanding Rural Support for Right‐Wing Politics and Looking for Progressive Solutions". Sociologia Ruralis. 60 (4): 710–731. doi:10.1111/soru.12291. ISSN 0038-0199..

It is that one. The bit about Thatcherism is on page 716. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You missed the second part of YESPOV, which says that Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. These are uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by multiple high-quality academic sources (most of which are in fact secondary in the sense that they cite other sources, themselves, for the points we're using them for.) If you want to argue that they're contested or controversial, you have to demonstrate that, not just assert it; part of the purpose of WP:WEASEL is that we shouldn't downgrade things that the sources state as fact to mere opinion just because an editor disagrees or dislikes their conclusions. I spent a bunch of time digging up additional sources for every part you initially objected to; if you don't think they're good enough to use for statements of fact, or if you have some other issue with them, you at least need to be specific as to why - dismissing them as opinion without a more clear basis for that characterization is just indicating your personal disagreement with them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't apply here because we are talking very subject political notions here, not facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

💀 92.1.168.50 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if you think that these are subjective, the best sources we have available at the moment disagree, and we have to go by the sources rather than your personal opinions; otherwise every part of every political article would have to be stated as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources convey the views of the academics, nothing more. There are no proven findings, just as you might find in scientific research, just subjective interpretations of events and situations. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you get consensus for such comically unfortunate commentary, then maybe 92.1.168.50 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I see you've resorted to disruptive editing now, by removing valid tags before the problem is resolved. What makes you think that the opinions in those cherry-picked sources can be asserted in Wiki's voice as facts? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I find it pointless to argue with you 92.1.168.50 (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

E.C.: Please detail which sources you object to, or which are inconsistent with their respective main articles, in the reverts on UK populists. Almost all are academic sources that cover in explicit detail the topic populism in the UK. The sources themselves cite sources which are about the subjects and/or populism in the UK. (E.g., These are not throwaway blurbs by nobodies on articles about unrelated topics. Kenny & Ife, cited for Thatcher, themselves cite among others McSmith's 2013 retrospectives on Thatcher.) There are good uses of sources and bad uses of sources, and on reviewing this is not the latter. The main biography articles are the places to amass citations to further such points -- we don't need 5 citations for each person on this article if one or two good citations do the job. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

REDFLAG applies. Compare the wording in this section with that for Canada: "In recent years, right-wing populist elements have existed within the Conservative Party of Canada and mainstream provincial parties and have most notably been espoused by [various politicians]."

There is no universal consensus that the U.K. Conservative Party, Thatcher and Johnson are/were right-wing populists, just that they have incorporated elements into their campaigns and policies.

A similar phenomenon has occured among other mainstream right-wing parties, for example in the U.S., Canada and Australia. Are they also right-wing populist parties? If so, the article should discuss this as a whole, rather than at the country level. TFD (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the sourcing and our article say that the U.K. Conservative Party has a right-wing populist faction, that some of its policies have right-wing populist elements, and that some of its prominent members have been right-wing populists, not that it the entire party is a right-wing populist party. That statement is entirely anodyne and unexceptional - I'm baffled that you'd suggest it could be considered REDFLAG; is your assertion that any statement that anyone is on the political right now somehow exceptional? I absolutely do think there's academic consensus that Thatcher and especially Johnson were right-wing populist politicians - the objection to Johnson is particularly bizarre; he's perhaps one of the most iconic right-wing populists in recent politics and is regularly discussed in-depth in academic papers about right-wing populism as a whole. We're not calling them far-right here; the term is a neutral, uncontroversial, and unexceptional academic description of their political style, backed by multiple high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confusing what the source (Karine Tournier-Sol) said with the text. She wrote, the Conservative Party "gradually repositioned itself as a radical right populist party."

See The Populist Radical Right' by Cas Mudde (2016). "The most important parties that are excluded from this analysis, but some other authors include, are...United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in the United Kingdom. All these parties share some but not all of the three core features that define the populist radical right party family.

"In most cases the debate is over the question of  whether nativism (most often anti-immigrant sentiments) is ideological or opportunistic, i.e. used only strategically in election campaigns. I exclude the following parties because nativism is not a core feature of their party ideology...UKIP."

The book does not describe Thatcher or Johnson (who was not yet PM but whose politics were known) as rw populists.

I think that classifications of right-wing parties is more likely to raise REDFLAG issues because, as Mudde explains, "Given that no party self-identifies as populist radical right, classification is up to scholars." Saying that the Liberal Party of Canada is a liberal party in comparison is relatively straightforward. TFD (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: The IP involved in some of the above conversation has been blocked for block evasion. I have struck their comments per WP:BANREVERT. Pinging Aquillion, DeFacto, SamuelRiv, Newimpartial & The Four Deuces for information as you were involved in the above conversation in which the IP took part. A smart kitten (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring/OWNership/improper removal of content by User:SamuelRiv

Hello, I believe that SamuelRiv's revisions are improper. He has repeatedly removed SOURCED content, by multiple editors. After the first time, he removed sourced content, I added more sources. He reverted those too. He also seems ignorant of rather basic facts, such as that "globalism" and "new world order" are rather synonymous. pbp 04:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review my edit summaries, in which I make always make a point to give my complete reasoning. Every novel statement of fact and substantial qualification in your prose must be supported directly by the in-line references. Please review verifiability, the bare minimum standard for inclusion of material.

Furthermore, when I remove content that fails verification, I note in the edit summary that you can provide an exact page/section number and quote if I missed it. If instead you cite additional sources, incompletely listed without links or authors, and 70+ pages, it appears to me as if your response to being asked for verifiability is hostility. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Dude, it's sourced! You haven't provided enough justification to remove 2K+ of texts, including several citations, and edit-warring to do so. Instead of removing whole chunks of texts, you should have come here FIRST, BEFORE removing anything that HAD A CITATION, and explained the SPECIFIC CLAIMS YOU WERE OBJECTING TO. You could've used the CN tag instead of removing large chunks of (and let me say this again) SOURCED text. It's also pretty clear to me that you haven't ACTUALLY READ the citations you're removing, at least not the preponderance of them. Just because you're too dense and hasty to find it in a 5-second search doesn't mean it's not there. And, yes, I AM a little bit pissed at you, because you're not assuming good faith towards the edits and you're coming off as trying to take OWNership of this article. For example, above you assume that I don't understand verifiability (a policy, which, I might add, does NOT require specific page numbers for anything) pbp 05:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In response to other messages: I review every source I remove. In this case all I had to do (after finding it because you didn't provide links) was ctrl+f for the novel key words. Prose follows sources, and the WP:BURDEN is on the editor challenged to show verifiability, the minimal standard. (After that, we can talk about reliable sources -- you can't use a NYT opinion piece unattributed, for example.)

When something is likely uncontroversially accurate and likely verifiable and WP:DUE, I will tag rather than remove it. This text was on inspection, and upon checking the sources, none of those things. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv: that's not really thorough enough to say you "reviewed it". You more or less have admitted you DIDN'T READ THE CITATIONS YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE REVIEWED. You haven't even explained what novel key words you used, and I'm not even sure you used the correct novel search terms. You haven't really even listed the claims you believe to be controversial and thus requiring a source, and, until you do, I can't really take you seriously. Again, a half-assed Ctrl+F job isn't justification to remove 2K+ of text that sources. I'm not even sure you've even READ THE CITATIONS I added, because the NYT thing I added was fully attributed. pbp 05:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

To this and above: If it's in the sources, you have to point me to the location precisely. It is completely unfair to respond to a failed verification removal by adding 70-page source and expect me to do anything other than a ctrl+f. (And that's a courtesy -- your thesis advisor wouldn't even review such a source if you presented it to them in that way.) I address NYT above. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't explained what statements you find controversial, so how the hell can anybody point you in the right direction? I might note that verifiability doesn't mean "cite everything", it means "cite everything CONTROVERSIAL". You haven't explained the SPECIFIC STATEMENTS you find controversial (let alone WHY you find them controversial), and this now is the second or third time I've asked you to. And frankly, unless you explain what SPECIFIC statements you want cited and what SPECIFIC terms you looked for in the sources, we shouldn't take anything you say seriously, you should be reverted and move on.

Also, FWIW, I already have a Master's Degree, I got it in 2014, so you can take your little snark about thesis advisor and shove it. pbp 05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:Verifiability. (Note this is a minimum standard -- sources must also be reliable and material must be WP:Due, among other things.) Among other things, every wikilinked term in the deleted text must be explicitly supported; "frequently" as a characterization must be directly supported; any connection of WJB, and separately any connection of the Populist Party (not its policies -- the party itself) to right-wing populism must be explicitly supported (i.e. it must be related by the source itself directly to the article topic, or else it is at best WP:SYNTHesis). SamuelRiv (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

While I won't vouch for their demeanor, it is possible some of these citations might be in order. I see no issue with requesting attributions or asking for help in finding the context that relates to the issue at hand. The one part that concerns me is...

• The Republican Party (United States) is a big tent party that includes right-wing populist factions.

While the GOP may have been a "big tent" party until recently, many experts now seem to say that is no longer the case. I looked through most of this citation and could not seem to find the context it refers to, though it may quite possibly be present somewhere in the wall of text. Full disclosure, I do not have a Masters degree. Cheers. DN (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I have several problems with SamuelRiv's approach. Among them, 1) He refuses to accept any paper citations, only online ones (and that's contrary to policy), 2) It took multiple tries for him to actually explain on the talk page which portions of the removed text he found controversial, 3) He hasn't explained what terms he searched for and didn't find in the sources, 4) he didn't look through the sources thoroughly, removing them after a hasty "ctrl+f" job, 5) he's essentially edit-warred because he's reverted multiple DIFFERENT edits with different levels of sourcing, 6) I question whether he examined at all the sources he removed in his last edit, and 7) he's assuming bad faith and talking down to me. pbp 12:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review ONUS. SamuelRiv has stated the problem, in their view the claims fail WP:V. Since you disagree the next step is to provide page numbers and if needed the specific passages that support the claims. Also, please keep a civil tone. I suspect much of this is just frustration and venting but it's always easier to come to a mutually equitable solution when all people remember to use a civil tone. Springee (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: Please take a look below at what I've said about a couple of the passages and sources in question and let me know if I have addressed ONUS. Also please note that I think Sammy's claim that they fail WP:V is built of a rope of sand; I don't believe he did due diligence before removing large passages of SOURCED content. In some cases, I believe the sourcing was there; he just wasn't able to find it because he half-assed looked for it. pbp 16:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: @SamuelRiv:: Consider this article by National Public Radio. Information in the article can be used to:

1. Identify a link between Bryan and right-wing populist Donald Trump
2. Apply a populist label to both Bryan and Trump
3. Equate populism with nativism and cultural conservatism ("Populism has also often had a strong admixture of nativism, resistance to cultural change or diversity and outright racism.")
4. Link Bryan specifically to creationism, Prohibition and Christian fundamentalism. (For this, start reading at "Bryan served as Wilson's secretary of state for two years and thereafter..." and continue reading to the end of the section.)
5. Supports a claim that right-wing populism is racist and anti-intellectual (with the quote "As Oscar Winberg, an international scholar and a student of U.S. political history, has described it, there have been "anti-intellectual and, at times, overtly racial appeals" that characterized "right-wing populism."")
6. Supports labeling George Wallace a right-wing populist.
7. There were concerns about the affiliated idelogies of right-wing populism, but this article alone ties RWP to nativism, Christian fundamentalism and segregation (Anti-Semitism already had a source)

If that doesn't satisfy you, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm not sure we can take you seriously; as I said above, perhaps if you don't approve of this either, your comments should be ignored). I might add there already WAS a source for WJB information, so it probably was in error to remove information about WJP. pbp 12:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: @SamuelRiv: And let's look at the sourcing for Thomas Watson, the Georgia Encyclopedia. The statement being challenged for inclusion in this Wikipedia article is, "Watson, the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Populist Party in 1896 and presidential nominee in 1900, eventually embraced white supremacy and anti-Semitism." Quotes from the Georgia Encyclopedia include "In later years he emerged as a force for white supremacy and anti-Catholic rhetoric.", and "In 1913, during the trial of Leo Frank, Watson’s strong attacks on Frank and on the pervasive influence of Jewish and northern interests in the state heavily influenced negative sentiment against Frank, who was lynched by a mob in 1915.", the latter quote providing evidence of embracing anti-Semitic rhetoric. pbp 12:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The NPR article compares Trump and Bryan as populists, not as right-wingers. The author cites Politico favorably that the two were "the perfect populist" for their respective times, which is antithetical to the topic. The only other citation is to Weinberg, who notes right-wing populism only in the context of Wallace. To reiterate: you cannot take individual policies of the 19th-century Populist Party, compare them to modern right-wing policy positions, and conclude that PP is right-wing. (First because that's definition OR, second because you can do the exact same to conclude PP is left-wing, which is a big reason OR and SYNTH are explicitly not allowed.)

The latter is why I can't see the relevance of the Watson article. Again, for every specific right-wing policy analogue you note, I can note a left-wing policy. Maybe that's why they never call this person explicitly right or left, or even directly conservative (except indirectly in noting someone else is far more conservative).

Again, this is again discussion of verifiability. We would also have to review whether Elving or Pierannunzi are reliable sources for making such broad characterizations and comparisons of turn-of-the-century politics (had they in fact done so in the way you seem to think they did). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, this is NOT a discussion of verifiablity. This is a discussion of Sammy-gotta-get his way. You've demonstrated with your last comments that NO sourcing will satisfy you, and you are misusing WP:V to try and get your way. Your comments should be ignored. It seems you have trouble with Bryan and Watson being characterized as right-wing populists, but call this what it is: a content dispute, not a verifiablility dispute.

Let me state that it is my belief that verifiablility has been passed and the content should be re-added.

Also, Sammy says, "To reiterate: you cannot take individual policies of the 19th-century Populist Party, compare them to modern right-wing policy positions, and conclude that PP is right-wing." Why not? The sourcing is there to support the claim that elements of the Populist Party, including its two most-prominent standard-bearers, supported conservative or fundamentalist policies. This quote by Sammy is utterly ridiculous and goes above and beyond anything that WP:V asks for, reaffirming my belief that this is about Sammy getting his way more than anything else.

Elving or Pierannunzi not reliable sources. Oh boy, more WikiLawyering... Elving is a longtime reporter and editor for an nonpartisan news outlet. Again, Sammy putting up pedantic roadblocks to try and get his way.

@Darknipples: @Springee: please take note of my comment pbp 17:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is Ron Elving's bio from NPR:

• He is also a professorial lecturer and Executive in Residence in the School of Public Affairs at American University, where he has also taught in the School of Communication. In 2016, he was honored with the University Faculty Award for Outstanding Teaching in an Adjunct Appointment. He has also taught at George Mason and Georgetown.
• He was previously the political editor for USA Today and for Congressional Quarterly. He has been published by the Brookings Institution and the American Political Science Association. He has contributed chapters on Obama and the media and on the media role in Congress to the academic studies Obama in Office 2011, and Rivals for Power, 2013. Ron's earlier book, Conflict and Compromise: How Congress Makes the Law, was published by Simon & Schuster and is also a Touchstone paperback.
• During his tenure as manager of NPR's Washington desk from 1999 to 2014, the desk's reporters were awarded every major recognition available in radio journalism, including the Dirksen Award for Congressional Reporting and the Edward R. Murrow Award from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Carol Pierannunzi:

• University Press of Kansas Carol Pierannunzi is an Emeritus professor of political science and international affairs at Kennesaw State University and author of Politics in Georgia, co-author of Building Civic Capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools.
• CDC Senior Survey Methodologist for the CDC

I currently don't see any issue with these sources. DN (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

One week later...

After one week, and five days of the discussion being stale,

• Darknipples "currently [doesn't] see any issue with these sources". He DOES object to the use of the phrase "big tent" but that can easily be remedied.
• Me, Purplebackpack89, as the guy who added the sources, has repeatedly said he doesn't see any
• Springee address Purplebackpack89's behavior but not really whether he objects to the sources being used or not
• SamuelRiv appears to be alone in objecting to the sources, but consensus seems to be against him. There is the additional concern that he has been presented multiple sources and found things to dislike about any of them, and that his behavior verges on POV pushing and OWNership.

Therefore, I am going to restore something akin, albeit with the NPR source added and some phrasing fixes. Darknipples and I have CLEARLY demonstrated that the source material is verifiable and reliable. pbp 22:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• SamuelRiv, I just spent twenty minutes figuring out what that edit of yours was all about, and finding the text for this, "Why Does Globalization Fuel Populism? Economics, Culture, and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism". Annual Review of Economics (13): 133–70. 2021., trying to see if indeed this citation somehow "Failed verification". What I think, also given the lack of discussion here, is that you didn't actually look at this source, and that your large-scale revert was just unwarranted. I also think that this discussion shows you need to be much more careful.
  Now, on to the actual source: User:Purplebackpack89, did you add that source? There were two typos in there, and there was no link, even though the journal is open-source (and the journal has an article here). Worse, I do not see how the statement "American right-wing populists tend to cast politics as a struggle between the people and a globalist conspiracy of business, cultural and political elites" is verified in that article--which is really not about that, doesn't really discuss conspiracy theories (doesn't even mention the term), and takes a very historical approach to "American populism", which in the section you just restored has a recentist and decidedly non-historical slant. So, for different reasons than SamuelRiv (who I don't think did their homework), I do not agree with the current state of that section. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)