Talk:Populism/Archive 3

FA Track

This article has made tremendous advances since I made comments above (as 72.228.150.44 , 108.183.102.223 ). IMO should be on some kind of track to get higher visibility as a public service. Lycurgus (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank for your kind words regarding the project of improvement, Lycurgus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Europe populistic parties

I would like to add the section "Europe populistic parties" and covering there all populistic parties:

• AfD Germany
• SVP Switzerland
• FN France
• UKIP UK
• FPO Austria
• Fisdesu Hungary
• PiS Poland
• etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0e7s (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sloppy article with no mention of Julius Caesar and the Populares in the history of populism

This article is sloppy and its history section begins with saying that "populism" emerged as a term in the 19th century in reference to some Russian political party. That sounds ridiculous, I imagine it arose earlier than that. However there is no serious investigation into its early history in this article. One prominent ancient populist movement was the Populares in the Roman Republic supporting expanded rights for the common people (those without aristocratic title) that were in conflict with the Optimates - an elitist party seeking to secure the powers of Roman aristocrats and opposed the Populares' populist efforts to expand the powers of the commoners.

Roman Dictator Julius Caesar was a Populare and is perhaps the most famous populist politician in history, the fact that Caesar and the Populares are addressed nowhere in this article is astounding and shows how badly done this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.139.194 (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The question is, does the main academic literature on "populism" link the concept to the ancient Populares of the Roman Empire? If not, then neither would we. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The Oxford Handbook of Populism describes the Populares as follows: "we might locate the origins of populism with the populares, Senators of the late Roman Republic who, in contrast to the conservative optimates claimed to speak for the plebs", it goes on to say later "it is worth observing that efforts to extend the scope of Roman citizenship were constantly the work of the populares. From a patrician perspective, this may have been a cynical ploy to increase the populists' base of support,". The book says that the contempory conception of populist politics is more recent from the 19th century onward, however as quoted above it recognizes the Roman Populares as an early representation of populist politics. So yes the 19th century is where the contemporary conception of populism was formulated, however earlier populist politics did exist with the Populares being an example and this should be noted in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.46.212 (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, not having populares is massive let down of this article.Sourcerery (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The first thing that came to my mind: the populist Roman tribunes. Zezen (talk)

Mounk and Kyle: 46 populist leaders since 1990

This article[1] may be of interest to you all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Really?

"In 2010s the United Kingdom politics was shocked by..." What does it mean for "politics" to be shocked by anything? And the person making this fatuous claim like to justify it? 31.48.245.103 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC);

Populism is normal politics.

There is something strange going on with the word "Populism". In this article it is falsely defined as: "Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to the people". This is a strange definition because as far as I know this is a "technique" practiced by all politician and political parties that strife to be popular with more than only some marginal groups. And why not, democracy has everything to do with the will of the people and should have nothing to do with politicians ignoring people and implementing their own hobbyhorses. So "populism" is nothing but democracy in its purest form, and should be defined as common practice. However, politicians and political parties that already belong to the status quo tend to misuse this term against newcomers that criticize them for not really listening to the people. With this they try to suggest that the newcomer is opportunistic and lacks idealism. And finding the false definition of this term in this Wikipedia only proves that they have succeeded with many of you all. Or maybe the majority of Wikipedia moderators are just voters for the status quo, a status quõ that is not really interested in the will of the people.83.98.229.18 (talk)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia exists to summarize what published Reliable Sources say. It doesn't exist as a vehicle for your, mine, or anyone else's original thoughts and theories about what words should really mean. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That's what it is, I know. It should also all be seen in the historic context. The Cold War polarized to left and right and since that is gone there is no longer clear competition of two sides. Populism looks like filling that void - but I don't think it does. 124.184.70.17 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Populism pre-dates the Cold War, and can be found in both leftist and rightist versions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Over reliance in Article on Mudde & Kaltwasser?

Looking through the sources cited on this page, I'm almost wondering if there's an over-reliance on Mudde & Kaltwasser's Populism: A Very Short Introduction? I'm by no means a scholar on Populism, and legitimately am not aware of whether this is universally considered an accurate guide to populism, however the fact that the book appears as, by far, the most cited source seems sketchy to me (by first impressions). Surely, Mudde & Kaltwasser's conclusions must have come from actual, peer-reviewed scholarly work? If so, it might be more appropriate to find these sources, rather than having such a heavy reliance on the one book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.93.67 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely worth adding more material from other peer-reviewed sources, that's for sure. But there's no reason to remove anything cited to Mudde and Kaltwasser (not that you're claiming that). Using the academic textbooks as a base is always a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

History section first paragraph

"Scholars who have studied populism agree that it is a modern phenomenon.[147] Its origins are often traced to the late nineteenth century, when a populist movement arose in the United States and another different kind of movement, but with a name frequently translated as "populist" in the Russian Empire[147] Populism has often been linked to the spread of democracy, both as an idea and as a framework for governance.[147]" I want to challenge this false claim.

https://history.cornell.edu/news/historian-offers-lessons-antiquity-today%25E2%2580%2599s-democracy - mentions populares and fifth-century B.C. Athens

https://www.21global.ucsb.edu/global-e/may-2018/populism-and-politically-excluded-lessons-ancient-rome - ...populism cannot be defined as a challenge to liberal democracies since populism has been around a very long time, predating liberal democracies by many centuries.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-rome-populist_b_9659660 - even huffpost

Plenty of sources saying populares are indeed populist, there are sources that go further into Greek democracy, something to be looked at.Sourcerery (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

These are all web sources; do we have any explicitly academic, peer-reviewed sources making this same case? If we do, then I'd be very much in support for including this argument within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't we just need RS? Isn't professor on university great starting point?Sourcerery (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

True, and I certainly don't mean to say that we can't use these sources. But I'm hoping that there might be better sourcing out there (i.e. something that these professors have actually written and published in peer-reviewed journals) which we can use instead (or as well as). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I will remove incorrect information, add just short sentence with source and put expand section template so editors know where to start from.Sourcerery (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that it's appropriate to just remove information you disagree with, Sourcerery. At the end of the day, lots of scholars working on populism see it as a fundamentally modern phenomenon. What we can do is add a few sentences saying that some historians argue that the concept has parallels with certain ancient political stances. That way we explain both POVs, rather than just pushing one as if it were automatically true and the other false. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

But it's wrong? Go on Pericles which is featured article and see how much time he is called populist, and how many sources are quoted.Sourcerery (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not for us to make the judgement as to what is right or wrong. We report what the Reliable Sources say. Some historians might call Pericles a "populist", but the question is what they mean by it, and is it the same thing that political scientists mean when they talk about "populism"? Sometimes the same word can be used to mean different things by different people operating in different fields: take "phenomenology", for example. We must be careful not to conflate and confuse these divergent uses, and we definitely shouldn't be claiming that ancient authors called Pericles a "populist" when the word and concept (as we not use it) did not even exist back then. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Well reliable sources say he is populist, why did you delete it? And one of translators is Sarah Ruden, I think we will have to go with what she says.Sourcerery (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You are using WP:Primary sources as the basis of your argument here. Can you provide Reliable Sources, ideally from peer-reviewed academic publications, that explicitly refer to Pericles as a "populist" in the sense that this article is discussing? If you can then I would be more than happy to see that incorporated into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I already did give RS and you deleted them. https://web.archive.org/web/20110414112851/http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/2055/l23anc.htm#. Sarah Ruden Lysistrata, 80. I would also like to point out that you don't have consensus for inclusion of inaccurate section in History and concerns have been raised for lack of inclusion of populares and you ignored them.Sourcerery (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, you are posting a dead link. As I said, if you can provide RS that testify to the argument that Pericles should be conceived as a populist then I'd be more than happy to integrate those into the article. Aside from the link which does not even seem to work, what you are posting are references to Classical texts accompanied with claims that they demonstrate that Pericles was a "populist" in the sense used by modern political scientists. They do not. 12:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Link works well and he is explicitly called populist.Sourcerery (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

Closing this RfC without action. There is no prejudice against creating a new RfC that is neutral and poses a specific question or questions.

Cunard (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

There is heavy reliance on source that is verifiably false (Mudde & Kaltwasser 2017, "Populism: A Very Short Introduction", name implies it doesn't cover entire topic). Request for comment on history section (see talk page), article as whole and source itself.Sourcerery (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No reliable evidence is given for the claim that Populism: A Very Short Introduction is "verifiably false". The book, published by Oxford University Press in 2017, is written by two established political scientists (Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser) who have published extensively on the topic of populism. They are experts on the subject. The article does presently rely too heavily on this particular book but that can (and will) be remedied by the citation of a broader range of peer-reviewed sources. As previous Talk Page discussions show, Sourcery's objection to the use of the book stems primarily from his or her commitment to the belief that Pericles and various ancient Graeco-Roman figures can be called "populist", which contrasts with Mudde and Kaltwasser's argument that populism should be seen as a fundamentally modern phenomenon. Sourcery has yet to present peer-reviewed sources written by political scientists that share their opinion that the concept of "populism" is applicable to various pre-modern societies: that is not to say, however, that such sources do not exist. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was given, history is written by historians not political scientist.Sourcerery (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, you have also yet to provide peer-reviewed high quality sources produced by historians which make the argument that Pericles and other Graeco-Roman figures could be construed as "populists" in the modern sense. All you have provided to make your case are references to Graeco-Roman texts themselves (Primary Sources) and a couple of web sources, one of which appears to be a dead link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not true, link is working, and it's modern translation from expert in field. All you have provided is one inaccurate source which now has to be questioned because it can't even get basics right.Sourcerery (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The original link is dead; the Web Archive version that you posted also does not work for me; perhaps others will have better luck. Either way, it doesn't look like a highly quality peer-reviewed source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Well it works for me and it's RS. As is Sarah Ruden translation of Lysistrata, 80. I would also point out that Barry S. Strauss notes example of the fifth-century B.C, period in which Pericles lived entirely. I would also point it that you have not provided good reason for still having inaccurate information in article from Mudde and Kaltwasser's "Very Short Introduction", emphasis on the title. Now I'm thinking about Unreliable source tag, what kinda "high quality, peer-reviewed" source can't even get the basics right?Sourcerery (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That a core textbook on the topic of populism written by two well-respected professional experts on the subject is incorrect is your personal opinion. It is not fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's in serious jeopardy if it contradicts historians, and it does.Sourcerery (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. At least, not inherently. In political science, the term "populism" has come to mean a certain phenomenon that political scientists associate primarily (if not exclusively) with modernity. The term has also come to be used in other ways by other people, including by a handful of historians, some of whom have used it in reference to phenomenon in the past; they don't necessarily mean the same thing by it. It's fine for the article to make this clear, but it doesn't mean we disregard the political scientists as being "wrong". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does, these are historians of today. They are comparing it with phenomenons of today, notably Donald Trump. You are worrying me now, did you even read source that you have put in the article, one regarding populares and 5th century BC?Sourcerery (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course I read it. But all it represents is a single web article summarising what one historian (Strauss) said in one lecture. It's not even written by the historian in question himself, let alone published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed manner. Moreover, from the article it's not even completely clear that Strauss was actually claiming that the ancient populares were "populist": it is possible that he was simply comparing them to modern populists and drawing lessons from that comparison. (Although the title of his lecture does suggest that he was using the term "populism" for these ancient movements too). Either way, it's not a strong enough source to warrant us literally deleting claims made by some of the foremost experts of populism from this article. That's just fringe POV-pushing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

But why did you say it's focus is solely on history and has different definition than populism today when he draws clear parallels? quote: "some of whom have used it in reference to phenomenon in the past; they don't necessarily mean the same thing by it". And what about other sources I have given you multiple times, Prof. Steven Muhlberger Periclean Athens, Sarah Ruden Lysistrata? How exactly is that single source and fringe POV-pushing?Sourcerery (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

the populism article is about movements of large numbers of people organized together in the political arena, including coverage of their leaders. Pericles did have a rhetorical style and policy programs that resemble some instances of modern populism, but he did not attempt to build an organized movement of the sort we are primarily concerned with. Organized grassroots movements are a phenomena that require a democratic popular base, which you have after the French and American revolutions. For my own work on American populism in the late 19th century no participant or historian ever mentioned the ancient Greeks or Romans. indeed, I think none of them ever heard of Pericles, who is not taught in the sort of neighborhood elementary schools they attended. so I think oh we need is a footnote mentioning a resemblance to Pericles. Rjensen (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• This RFC isn't neutrally-worded (it calls the source "verifiably false", which appears to be the point of contention), but beyond that, as near as I can tell, you're asking if a source can be excluded because it has "A Very Short Introduction" in the title. The answer to that is obviously no (such titles are frequently rhetorical, and in any case shortness isn't a reason to exclude a source.) Also, political scientists seem like reasonable sources on populism as a concept. As Midnightblueowl implied above, rather than trying to dispute this source yourself, your time would probably be better-spent looking for sources discussing populism in the ancient world (I think there's a lot more to say about the evolution of populism as both a concept and a term, but that doesn't mean this source needs to be excluded.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• In this case, the subtitle of A Very Short Introduction is also the name of the Oxford University Press series in which Mudde and Kaltwasser's book is published. Indeed, it is included as the subtitle of every volume in that series. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Aquillion, this RFC is not neutral and there must be other sources out there that follow this topic. The source shouldn’t be removed, but it could be backed up with another source. Baseballdad (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Also agree with Aquillion. The RfC is not neutral and does not answer a sufficiently specific question for any of us to contribute constructively. Pincrete (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the 2017 book, delete Sourcerery. Sourcerery points to a circa 1998 university webhost from Professor Steve Muhlberger's HIST 2055 class notes at Nipissing University. There's no way I'm going to accept that nonsense as a source to impeach the book published by Oxford University Press. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• It seems to me that this whole RfC is just about one user who is trying to push a view that is at best an interesting thought experiment by an academic trying to find parallels between the modern and the ancient world and at worst a fringe view. Sourcerery is trying to establish this view as the obvious correct take on the meaning of Populism, while discarding other views by established experts as "wrong" and the arguments for doing so are pretty weak. Saying that a book written entirely about the topic by two experts in the field and published by the Oxford University Press is unreliable because the title claims it's a "very short introduction" is laughable. Mate, that's the name of the series and it's been around forever - Very Short Introductions. Perhaps no other word with its origins in political science has been more abused in the last decade than populism, with commentators trying to both restrict or widen the meaning to fit their interests, usually by claiming that it only applies to "the other side". Now we have to deal with these sort of fringe takes that are trying to redefine the term on a historical basis. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Truth, in general is not a criterion, here or virtually anywhere else outside of scientific and scholarly endeavor. Specifically, the criteria here are explicitly acceptable support which doesn't mean facts/truth, and implicitly community acceptability and/or apathy.Lycurgus (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Request for comment

The following discussion 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.

---

Should we go with political scientist opinion or historians opinion on History of Populism? Main contention is claim that populism didn't exist before 19th century.Sourcerery (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Anyone considering contributing to this RfC should probably consult the recent RfC on the same subject and the Talk Page discussions which preceded it. This is part of a wider attempt by Sourcery to present populism as a phenomenon present in the ancient world, a viewpoint that is not really supported by any Reliable Sources thus far presented. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is and we already have multiple sources supporting that view, unlike only one so far in article supporting that there isn't. This is another attempt by Midnightblueowl to misrepresent issue and push his POV.Sourcerery (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Both of you please avoid commenting on each other. Let's stick to the content issue. It would be helpful to create an area on this page showing the sources we have. Not weaved into another discussion; just a straight list. That would make it easier for outsiders to comment on whether or not they are reliable and what they show.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Nobody is suggesting that historians' views should be excluded from this article. What is in doubt is the reliability of the two sources that Sourcery has actually provided; one a translation of a primary source in which a Latin or Ancient Greek term is glossed with "populist" by the translator; and the other a website they have found in which a Classicist compares certain ancient politicians with modern populists. Not top quality sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Translator in question is Sarah Ruden (Harvard University, Ph.D. (Classical Philology)). There are four sources already in article disapproving claim populism didn't exist before 19th century in Populism#History.Sourcerery (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Think it's a relly bad form to add and alter History section while RFC is in progress, but midnightblueowl decided to go for it.Sourcerery (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I added material cited to The Oxford Handbook of Populism, a very high quality source. Not exactly bad form. Anyway, Sourcerery, one thing I would stress is that neither I nor (as far as I can tell) anyone else actually opposes citing historians in the article. The issue at hand is the quality of the sources you have thus provided and whether they carry sufficient weight to literally overturn what the vast majority of scholars say (that populism is fundamentally a modern phenomenon linked to the growth of democracy). It's up to you, but I would recommend terminating this RfC and rephrasing it to specifically ask editors whether sources like Ruden's translation or the web article about Strauss should be used in this article. That's the real nub of the matter. Because as far as I can see, everyone posting here is going to say "yes, use both historians and political scientists", but that's not really what we actually disagree on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Both. Assuming they are reliably sourced, there is no reason why either political scientists' or historians' views should be favored. If there's a split between them, then the split should be noted. R2 (bleep) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Both – provided that any given source in question is reliable, perspectives from multiple fields are necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC; this is too vague to comment usefully. Obviously there's no objection to including anything that can be reliably sourced, and sources about populism in the ancient world may well exist; but nobody has put them forward yet, so there's nothing to evaluate. Also, given that Sourcerery has been indefinitely blocked, and given that the RFC is vague about what it would want added, I propose closing it until / unless someone else steps forward to articulate what they want added to the article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support Aquillon's suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• As do I. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Both. Assuming there are reliable sources for both. If such a divide exists in relevant academic fields then that should also be pointed out in the article. Hecato (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: The editor who launched this RfC has now been indefinitely blocked. Given that this RfC was just part of their attempt to force the article to adopt their fringe POV, isn't it worth shutting it down now? No-one actually disagrees that the article should use the work of both political scientists and historians, so it seems pretty superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

Sourcery's edit warring

User:Sourcerery, please stop edit warring to force a "populism" infobox into the article. It's utterly superfluous and makes the lede look cluttered and messy. There's a reason infoboxes are rarely if ever found in FA-rated articles. If you want an infobox, argue your case here and try to gain consensus. I can see from your Talk Page that you've been warned about edit warring at other articles on several occasions before, including very recently. The appropriate course of action would now be for you to undo your addition and seek a Talk Page consensus for your desired change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl You need consensus, not me. What I am doing is widely accepted practice if not rule, so what you want is exception. Discuss issues at talk page.Sourcerery (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"You need consensus, not me." No, that's not how it works. You are adding a box to the lede, not me. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, it is widely accepted on all political pages and kinda rule. What you want is exception.Sourcerery (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a single one of which is either GA or FA rated. Using articles that are of a generally poor quality as a benchmark with which to aspire is not good practice. Regardless of which, you do not have consensus for the addition and are clearly editing tendentiously, which you were warned about over at ANI only yesterday. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it a rule or not?Sourcerery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not. Most emphatically it is not. Some editors like the boxes, hence they go around making them and slapping them on many different articles, but more broadly the boxes are quite unpopular and that's why you'll rarely if ever find them on articles that actually reach the status of "Featured article". Boxes that sit at the bottom of the articles, which are obviously far less intrusive, are generally favoured. Please, Sourcerery, I know that you're new(ish) and still learning the ropes here at Wikipedia, but this is an example where you really should revert your addition and seek consensus. If you repeatedly edit tendentiously you'll only find yourself getting banned in the end and I don't think you want that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What? I don't think that's true, I'm pretty sure I have read somewhere that we must have those boxes when they exist, especially ones that are directly linked to article itself. Maybe you are right, but I find it hard to trust you because of conduct and behavior you displayed on this topic, you can remove it but if I find it's rule it's coming right back.Sourcerery (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to allow its removal. I've been here for well over a decade and have brought over 25 articles to Featured Article status, so I'm an old timer when it comes to Wikipedia. Trust me when I say that it's not a rule. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're keen on bars, have you considered making one on populism that would instead go at the bottom of the page? I would be very supportive of such an addition should you decide to make one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I will consider that, it's a good suggestion.Sourcerery (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the box is a useful addition, it helps provide context in an easily accessible way Dark567 (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Communism and populism

Can communism be considered an example of populism? 178.43.89.115 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)