Talk:Populism/Archive 2

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:
 * Populist Party (United States), a party of the 19th century, also called People's Party.
 * People's Party (United States, 1970s), sometimes also called Populist Party.
 * Radical Right-wing Populist Party, a 1980s and 1990s white supremacist group.
 * Populist Party of America, current populist constitutionalist and libertarian party.
 * Populist Party of Maryland, a Nader 2004 state party. Lususromulus (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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:
 * Populist Party (UK), a current centrist and syncretic national conservative party of the United Kingdom.
 * Populist Party (United States), sometimes also called People's Party, a party of the 19th century, also called People's Party.
 * People's Party (United States, 1970s), sometimes also called Populist Party.
 * Radical Right-wing Populist Party, a 1980s and 1990s white supremacist group.
 * Populist Party of America, current populist constitutionalist and libertarian party.
 * Populist Party of Maryland, a Nader 2004 state party who still plays a role in Maryland politics. Lususromulus (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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)

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)

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)

Agreed
I agree with Franklinjefferson's likening of this article to "an argument between students in a sociology class." Or maybe to an argument between professors from different schools of thought who haven't even tried to figure out how to discuss it with each other.

Also, I was surprised to find no mention of the Soviet Union in the article, if even to differentiate parts or all of it from Populism. Here on the "talk" page there's an incomplete contrast of Populism vs. Marxism that I don't know whether or not to believe; so maybe it's good that nothing like it appears on the "article" page--except that I'm still curious about it. Then there's the contrast of Populism vs. Socialism and the use of terms (in fuzzy agreement or disagreement with that contrast) including "socialist populism" (without the quotes) or "'socialist' populism" (with the quotes).

One of the few things I'm sure of after trying to read this article and its talk page is that, as the opening statement of the "Academic Definitions" section postulates, "Academic definitions of populism have varied widely over the past centuries and the term has often been employed in loose and inconsistent ways..."

I hate to think of the tangles I might find on the "Marxism," "Socialism," and "Communism" pages.

This might have been suggested elsewhere, but maybe it would work to express each school of thought in a separate section, so that readers could see where each opinion was coming from. As it is now, they're all mixed together--without warning labels.

--ScottS (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.

Why start with ancient Rome? Arguably, Themistocles was the first populist, at least in the West. He relied on common people against the noble class of Athens. The whole article is bad from a political science point of view, and, what is more, biased. For example, populist movements in Chinese history are neglected (e.g. the Taiping uprising, and many others); the whole purpose of the article seems to be to denounce populism by taking the view of the social parties which are usually attacked by populism. Too little mention is made of the fact that those ruling parties use the term "populism" not in any analytical way, but as a biased concept to help their own agitation against other parties, classes, or groups.

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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) (for id) Lycurgus (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Strength and current socialist tendency
Performed requested copyedit on this § 72.228.150.44 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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).

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)

Though I agree that calling the Tea Party "populist" without doing an extensive section on the extreme populism of the "occupy" movement is yet more proof of the bias inherent in WIKIPEDIA, rather than delete the Tea Party section, it seemed more appropriate to add an "occupy" section and let the reader decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.230.247 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the claim that, "The populism under the Obama administration is not any more notable than any other trends of populism", I beg to differ, see: ABCNEWS story about Obama's "channeling" OWS populism.  This is but one of many examples of Obama engaging in extreme populism and encouraging racial, sexual and class divisiveness for perceived political gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.230.247 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)


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

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)
 * 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.  TFD (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

If this definition is correct, all Marxist parties are populist, as they believe that ruling parties and the elite represent the interest of the upper classes? Of course, most people would not agree. We have to consider that "populism" is also a propagandistic battle cry by élites coming under pressure from either new élites (circulation of the élites according to classical elite theory) or from lower classes or groups of people who feel not represented in ruling class politics.


 * 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)


 * Political opportunism and Demagogy, although they are not ideologies because they are not belief systems. TFD (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Scholars may define "populism" in the way they like, but in ordinary language the term has a meaning they can not alter, which is by all means negative: populists manipulate voters by propagating non-solutions, often to non-problems, typically related to scapegoats. The nazi's considered the jews as the source of all evil, and recently islam has been identified as a "perverse ideology" and proposals were made to stop "mass immigration" of muslims in Western European countries - a phenomenon which is not supported by numbers. Rbakels (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Populism means anti-elitism in both expert and common discourse. Populists attack elites primarily (they may also attack some marginal groups but the power elite is their focus). Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "populism" in Europe has come to mean right-wing populism, but there are other varieties such as chavismo. TFD (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I`m good with that if consensus is for merger mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

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.

Removed Link
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. The Blog was hacked and the domain shut down, way back in December of 2007.

Just letting everyone know. :)

-Patrick

K8cpa (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Right wing and neoliberal populism in Latin America
I find it strange and really a weakness of this article to not take into account the phenomenon of right wing neoliberal populism from the 1980s on in Latin America. I am talking about past latin american presidents such as Carlos Menem, Alberto Fujimori, Abdala Bucaram, Lucio Gutierrez, Fernando Collor and others who are constantly called populists in latin america because of their style and practice but who nevertheless adhered to the Washington Consensus and neoliberalism in their economic policies. For those not aware of this phenomenon I leave you for example this academic papaer dealing with this called Neoliberal populism in Latin America and Eastern Europe and here is another one called "Neopopulism and Neoliberalism in Latin America: how much affinity?". Both give the same examples so as to not give any doubt that we are dealing with a phenomenon which I ivented. And here is one in spanish about Mexico called "Populismo y neoliberalismo en México" which explains the phenomenon of neoliberal populist governments as based on an alliance between big business and neoliberal economists with the urban poor without state protections and privileges against trade unions, unionized workers, and the state bureaucracy.--Eduen (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes more is needed, and please get started. but please avoid POV terms like "neoloberalism" (which is only used by enemies of the idea). Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Latin America: Inequality section
The paragraph needs work. The second sentence is far too long, and the third sentence is a fragment. "Therefore the key role of the State in Latin American populism, as an institution mediating between traditional elites and the "people" in general." What?  ◦◦derekbd  ◦   ◦my talk◦◦  18:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Small-p populism and capital-P Populism in the United States
In American history, a precursor to the Progressives and the Progressive Era was the Populists of the late 19th Century. This should not be confused with the small-p populism. To speak of the Populists in the US is different from speaking about populists in the US. There should be a different Wikipedia article on the Populists, and the Popular Movement, separate from this more generic article on popularism. I did create a Populist movement (United States, 19th Century) and for the moment redirected it to History of the United States (1865–1918) but it is a big and important enough topic to have its own article. The article on the Populist Party is not enough; that was only one part of the Popular Movement. William Jennings Bryan was another. --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bruce Hall is looking for the People's Party (United States). Many of the leading progressives (like Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Robert LaFollete and George Norris) strongly opposed the Populists in the 1890s. The main Progressive who did support the Populists in 1896 was Bryan--or more exactly, the Populists supported him and most Pops moved into the Dem party. Rjensen (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

populism leads to fascism? BS
maybe it happened once somewhere, but that was an exception, generally populism has no connection with fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Social populism
The information presented in the Social populism section offers only a partial view of "Bolivian populiasm" since it does not includes sentences from sources that defend the MAS administration from such claims. Most sources on that section are based on the "academic" of Anglosaxon "experts" in First World universities. Very little (actually none) of the space are given to other opionions. In fact far from all key policies of the MAS are popular (seeking short-term populity), take for example the attempt to raise the fuel tax.Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Italy
Populism in modern Italian politics is certainly not confined to Berlusconi as might appear from the current text. The Lega Nord is an obvious case in point, and one of the two current sources actually regards its relationship with Berlusconi. Some mention now surely needs to be made of the Movimento 5 Stelle led by television comedian Beppe Grillo. Historically, the Front of the Ordinary Man (L'Uomo Qualunque) is clearly also noteworthy as a first political expression of Italian populism after the overthrow of Fascism (which itself gets little space on the page in comparison with Nazism). —86.162.64.42 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First world
Considering the term "first", "second", and "third" world aren't terms that are even applicable to current day society, they should probably be removed from this article when speaking of developed, developing, or undeveloped nations unless used to outline historic context. The terms applied during the cold war, but now they are entirely irrelevant terms that can no longer be used correctly or applied in anything near their original meaning. 168.156.40.253 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Populism in Canada
This article (Populism in Canada) is not much bigger than some of the sections on this page, and is also the only separate page on Populism in ____. I could see the point in having a separate article on say Germany or Japan, where populism was an important factor in historic events, but a separate article on populism on Canada seems unnecessary. Could someone with a bit more experience look into merging Populism in Canada into this one? 192.253.205.187 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Tea Party does not have its origins in 1910, the ends for such an "argument" signal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.23.1 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging who added this in a series of substantial revisions to the United States section. I have changed it to 2010 as I assume it was a simple error. Ivanvector (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an excellent encyclopedia populism that I cited. The RS say the tea party started in early 2009. ("even days later, on February 27, 2009...forty-nine tea party protests were held all across America. What started a week before with a conference call had blossomed into a movement...." Meckler, Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution (2012) - Page 19  Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Populism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140218224533/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g-I0k_cJgsIQjWNqMJDWNaHIcdMA?docId=CNG.d6da68039416eecb0c88f76427f9bc45.ab1 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g-I0k_cJgsIQjWNqMJDWNaHIcdMA?docId=CNG.d6da68039416eecb0c88f76427f9bc45.ab1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Make the it clearer
The current lede fails to be clear about how populism plays on the ignorance and backwardness of the masses. Otherwise it would just be democracy, right? That's why 'populist' implies a just derision from the erudite and monied classes, the elites that stand in opposition to the undeveloped masses in the class struggle. You can say 'class struggle' can't you?

The second sentence of the current second paragraph somewhat accomplishes this, but the first sentence in that paragraph is basically a counterfactual. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also 72.228.150.44 above is me. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No. populism = virtuous people vs evil elites. There is no assumption here of ignorance among the populace or wisdom among the elites. Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See now if I did an edit pushing a POV like that ... . Degraded masses versus elites struggling for enlightenment, justice, and betterment is at least as valid a perspective. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the opening follows footnote #1 from Princeton = "the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite" Rjensen (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out splitting (psychology) 108.183.102.223 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * well no this is not psychiatry. that was tried by some scholars 60+ years ago and dropped as useless when dealing with real politics. Rjensen (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I meant you, your editing, and the whole "masses virtuous" - "elites evil" thing. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * you're new to politics. better start with tv evening news. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * show biz for ugly peoples (ryan and newsom notwithstanding), don't want. As for "tv evening news" I remember that from the prior century when it was actually a thing. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're missing out on the daily images of populist politics, thanks to Trump and Sanders. It's the real thing. Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just ran across jejune populism, maybe ties above thread to this one. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick search indicates that indeed 'jejune populism' is a thing, at least in marxist/socialist literature, and captures what was in the original second &para; and what I opened this thread about. The footnote isn't in the original 1940 as transcribed on marxists.org but it likely will be in the new completion of the work that is coming out or can be sourced elsewhere. Trotsky of course was killed by the subject of the work before he could complete it so the footnote might not be in the original. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also it's likely by jejune populism, Trotsky is referring to such tendencies at that time or prior as, and particularly, the Narodniks. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If the title of this thread is confusing that's because it was redacted by others after I created it, which action I then tacitly and now explicitly accept. Consult the history for the original. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

deleted paragraph
[copy ex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjensen talk] Liberty Taking... [This message was directed by a reply mechanism linked to my messages. If misdirected return to sender and discard] Dr. Jensen: Although it is clear that you are historically well credentialed, your recent changes regarding the populism Wiki-page caused contemporary interfaced metrics to divert worldwide Google searches. Google's algorithmic cues, based upon search results and quality volumes, directed users to the previous "populism" page as Google's "first hit." The version that I edited was popular and generally accepted proportionally, which tethered to the standard. I monitored the progress by that essential independent variable alone. Multiple devices and IP locations were used to verify my findings. When the edits changed, the Google results also changed. Users are now taken to Merriam-Webster's entry first. Although mild variations of essential editing arose throughout, a standard that accentuated Wikipedia held for ~7 months. That standard was set by comprehensive worldwide volume traffic, and enough to prompt the Wikipedia page entry and link to appear first in worldwide data searching. Subsequently, the externally generated population standard that was produced by merely typing "populism" in Google's search box and tethered it to Wikipedia is now and afterthought. Thanks. --J.Canfield — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcanfield (talk • contribs) 03:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The text I deleted was not well sourced--with only a useless ref to Princeton University. It did not make much sense to me. Try again with a serious reliable secondary source. We do not want readers sent here by google to be misled or confused. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Podemos Party in Spain
A glaring omission in the article of Populism is that of the Podemos Party in Spain led by Pablo Iglesias. Their anti-establishment ideology and political rhetoric has gained immense support in Spain causing a fraction in the general electorate and an intense divide in the general population. They claim that the PP and mainstream politicians are corrupt and have been mistreating the citizens and they offer an alternative. They very much have a populist agenda. I believe that a mention of the party is justified and necessary in fact.

86.173.71.250 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Podemos has not actually ruled Spain. If it stays as what it is right now, just another political party, it won't have a lasting significance on the concept of populism as a whole. It does have in the narrower topic of Spanish political history, but that's an issue for other articles. Cambalachero (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Better clarity about the subject of this article
Is there some way to make it clear that this article is about political theory and not the subject of populism as a phenomenon (like say, absenteeism or alarmism)? I think the notion of populism as an ideology is less obvious than its reality as a observable occurrence. Any thoughts anyone?50.100.30.200 (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error
In the first sentence of this article where it says "struggle between the populous and a ruling faction" it should be spelled poplulace not populous. Populace is a noun meaning the common people - see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populace whereas populous is an adjective meaning having a large population - see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populous

Joe Biden?
Isn't that premature? Was his 1988 campaign representative of populism? Somebody explain? Archer Rafferty (talk) 4:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota was collectivist/left-leaning
I thought it was vaguely social democratic yet the article calls it right-wing. I am super weak on this era but I can't find a solid source either way. Is there an academic source calling it right-wing?
 * yes--on the left and I fixed it. see  Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Localism and Populism
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I just added in a new section named "Localism and Populism" in between the authoritarianism and populism section, and the history section. I want to bring in some information about the correlation of populism and localism (which has not discussed on the page). I hope you enjoy this article and you might able to help me shape it better.

Cheers.--Leungyuhi (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)