Talk:Right-wing populism/Archive 1

Comments
I marked the articled as POV, since "radical right-wing populism" is a rather disputed term. It is primarily used as a term by leftist opponents of the mentioned parties. Radical right-wing Populism is merely a pejorative. 83.92.119.42 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Add to that complete lack of any kind of criticism of the term despite the term being heavily critisized. This article is heavily Far Left-biased. 83.92.119.42 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This term is used by many scholarly, non-partisan sources. And what secondary sources criticize this term or regard it as a mere pejorative? Note that you are not a secondary source. -- WGee 15:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoever wants can add information as they see fit. Please add any information you think is missing. Peregrine981 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 83.92.119.42, this article is blatent POV Evianmineralwater 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Exploit and understand
I can see the article by Patton has a sentence "and as populist because they exploit the frustration of the general public". I jumped in the little revert-war here and reverted "exploit" to "understand", and wrote "exploit is certainly a word of judgement, understand is the neutral choice" in my edit summary, but you may have been right: it's the populist-branding that's judgmental, and that one is already taken care of by the scholars in question. So, I start to wonder if I did wrong: let them brand this as populist, and let them say thats because they "exploit". To have "understand" there is just a way of hiding the POV-ness of the expression itself. I'll go for a small rewrite, the articel should be about how the expression is been explained - but not be just a repetition of this explaination. Greswik 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about using the phrase "appeal to" in place of "exploit" or "understand" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.22.66 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

POV
a large amount of the article seems based on a non NPOV sources. --Neon white 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

List of parties
I removed the list of parties. As the term "right-wing populist" is potentially defamatory, WP:BLP requires sources. There were zero sources, despite a request placed over a month ago. Since there were no cited entries, I removed the entire section. Argyriou (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Partisan sources
"[R]adical right wing populism traces back to roots in the Jacksonian period." How so? Jackson was a Democrat. Does this mean that "right wing populism" in the United States has its origins in the Democratic Party?

Agrarian impulse? What does this mean?

How can self-described socialists (National Socialists) be labeled right-wingers?

There are divergent views on this.

Many of the sources cited are merely modern leftist propaganda, not true historical scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronjhill (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And it could be suggested that you're looking at it from a modern day/right-wing perspective. The Democrats have not always been committed to liberal/centre-left policies (see Jacksonian Democrats), and by world standards, they're still a right-wing party. I assume "agrarian impulse" means the movement has had ties to agriculture. The Nazis are almost universally categorized as being right-wing -- the Socialist part is purely nominal. They had no coherent economic policy, and government intervention was done more for pragmatic means (recovery, war economy) than because they were socialists. On the other hand, their social policies were certainly far right, and they did portray themselves as a movement of the people versus the elites. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article takes it from a modern perspective, as it claims what makes a right-winger is exception to the welfare state. 206.124.7.109 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Page move
Why was the page moved from "Right-wing populism" to "National populism"?  Will Beback   talk    02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This term is by far more used in internet and general politics. You can google it.Eros of Fire (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources we have in the article appear to use the term "Right-wing populism". Are you sure that "National populism" is even the same concept? Unless a better case can be made I think the article should be moved back.   Will Beback    talk    20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I googled "national populism" and the first few links show that the term is similar to far right, which doesn't seem to be the same as right-wing populism. Also, "national populism" seems to be only a European term. I'm moving the article back to its original title.Spylab (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

there may be an American vs. European division in terminology in here. We need to look at this more closely, and perhaps disambiguate. In European usage, right-wing populism is associated with the "sanitized" (post-fascist) far right as it emerged in the 1980s. It is closely tied to xenophobia, and at the same time strangely to ultra-liberal free market ideologies (I say strangely, because an ultra-free market of course results in unchecked migration, which would seem to contradict the xenophobic approach, but of course populism by its nature doesn't have to be coherent, it has to be appealing) --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, is there anything specific that makes right-wing/nationalist populist particularly right-wing? There's lots of accurate descriptions as to why they can be considered populist, which is all fine, but there's only one, fleeting refference that even compares them to right-wing parties, and that only says that they quite often don't share some right-wing ideologies. Googling it all, i think National Populism does actually sound like a more accurate term, especially considering that right-left politics are, by themselves, becoming more and more redundant (see debates on BNP - Are they Right or Left? etc.) MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Badly cited sources
Many of the sources for this article are not cited in a useful manner. The sources suffer from two common problems:


 * 1) No page number, even for quotations.
 * 2) The author name and year are given, and sometimes the page number, but the book title is omitted from the source. (This works fine in articles like this one, which has a section where the books sources are stated, but in this article it makes the source difficult to look up.)

Now&mdash;referring to the sources based on their number in this snapshot of the article&mdash;sources 3 through 6 suffer from the first problem, as does 19. Sources 9 through 12, 15, and 16 suffer from the second problem.

Unfortunately, this is a problem which is most easily fixed by the people who originally added the sources... --darolew 09:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deeply problematic article
According to the tone of the article, there does not exist a "right-wing" that is not "right-wing populist" so long as it takes a view in public. Any concern or view that is expressed in political form by any party would fit the proposed definition of "right-wing populist".

The article contradicts itself - it first states that right-wing populist parties oppose the 'welfare state' and the 'present political system' (an overly broad and unexplained term IMHO - if you oppose the parties being in power, are you a radical that opposes the political system? the alternative would be that only parties that call for the entire removal of parliamentarism are right-wing populist, which would be a very small group), and later that right-wing populist parties 'sometimes distinguish themselves from the traditional Right by their support for social welfare programmes, gender equality, freedom of expression, gay rights, and separation of church and state.'. According to this definition, hence, any right-wing party could be called right-wing populist regardless of its views on anything.

Further problematically - this sentence states in an indirect way that the 'traditional Right' opposes freedom of expression. This is original research, or crackpot idiocy.

Furthermore, I note that simply by changing "right" to "left" to the definitions used here, every left-wing party would be populist as well, yet there is not even a "left-wing populism" article on Wikipedia!

Lastly, Nazism is called a right-wing ideology. This is based on the popular and conventional view that is most often held. But the popular and conventional view is also that Islamism is a left-wing ideology. By the same argument of popular view and Wikipedia reflecting convention rather than being an original researcher, a new article on left-wing populism should include islamism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.136.254 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Further problematically - this sentence states in an indirect way that the 'traditional Right' opposes freedom of expression. This is original research, or crackpot idiocy."


 * No, the right has traditionally been opposed to free speech. Embrace of free speech by people labelling themselves right-wing goes back to only a couple decades.


 * "there is not even a "left-wing populism" article on Wikipedia!"


 * That's in part because the original Populist movement was leftist, so Populism is, per default, a left-wing ideology. :Though I agree Wikipedia needs an article on modern left-wing populism (e.g. Hugo Chavez).


 * "Lastly, Nazism is called a right-wing ideology. This is based on the popular and conventional view that is most often held."


 * This is popular and conventional view, and the scholarly consensus, and is obvious to anybody who has a minimum of political education and knowledge of European history. The American right's recent attempts at trying to brand Nazism leftist and tying it with the American liberals are quite baffling, frankly.


 * "By the same argument of popular view and Wikipedia reflecting convention rather than being an original researcher, a new article on left-wing populism should include islamism."


 * Hmm, is that the newest conservative ploy to associate every thing evil the 'The Left'? Everybody in his right mind understands that Islamism is an extremistm of the right. It is usually considered that mainstream Islamism is a movement of the, heck, traditional right, though some on the American right insist it is a variant of the fascist right ('Islamofascism' etc). Islamism also tends to be populist, so some words on it could be added in the article.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 February 2010

Andrew Jackson a "Right Wing" populist?
The article claims exception to the welfare state is what makes someone a right-wing populist. There was no welfare state (thank GOD) in Andrew Jackson's time. Thus, the following quotation from the article makes no sense in context: "In the United States, radical right-wing populism can be traced back to the Jacksonian period and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the mid-19th century following the Civil War. In the U.S. it has often incorporated an agrarian impulse." 206.124.7.109 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this is a correct entry. This article, if I understand it correctly, is dealing not with "right wing populism" in general, which is a massive topic, but rather with what is knows as "radical right wing populism" in poli-scir circles, which is a more limited phenomenon. It should be dealing with the strategy employed primarily in Europe since the 1970s of populist rightist parties which run against the "elite" ruling class primarily, but are not always "right wing" in a traditional sense. I will remove the above statement, as it gets into a whole other issue. I would suggest renaming the article to Radical Right Wing Pouplism, as that is a well recognized term in the academic literature, and is cited in the article itself. Any thoughts on that? Peregrine981 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and original research
The article continues to be tagged although neither of these issues are clear. Could editors please indicate what the problems are or I will remove the tags. TFD (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also disagree with those tags. The article has some problems, but more in terms of lack of focus and lack of breadth IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed them. TFD (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Focus of Article
This article suffers from a lack of focus. There doesn't seem to be a well defined idea of what we are talking about here. Personally I would advocate moving the page to "radical right wing populism" as that term seems to be common in the literature and has a clear definition. However, I am not a specialist and would be open to arguments why we should not move it. As it stands now it seems to be a more or less amorphous term for any right wing populist, which I think is different from radical right wing populism. Perhaps there should be two articles...

One opening sentence that I would dispute at the moment is:

"Some scholars see populist movements potentially serving as a precursor creating the building blocks of fascist movements.[9][10][11]"

9. Ferkiss 1957. 10. Dobratz and Shanks–Meile 1988 11. Berlet and Lyons, 2000

A couple of these sources are not properly cited at all, and include a whole monograph without much to indicate where the statement, which is no doubt controversial and sweeping is made. I would advocate removing the statement unless we can find a more specific source. As I see it, modern RRWP, as discussed in polisci today, cannot really be said to be a precursor to fascism as fascism does not have much popular support in most of the world. Of course right wing populism is a part of the appeal of fascism, so this kind of theory might have a place somewhere in the article, but it seems that the discussion would have to be more nuanced and better sourced. Any thoughts? Peregrine981 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Right-wing populism is the commonly used term and is well defined in the literature although other terms are used as well, including radical right-wing populism. See Radical Right for more discussion on the use of the term.  TFD (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions
This page seems to contain some contradictions. It generalizes this political movement as being against the welfare state while at the same time it is said that they advocate some strong social welfare programmes and try to distinguish themselves from the traditional liberal right wing parties. The right-winged profile stems more from the policies regarding immigration, environment, globalization. More care should be put in avoiding wrong generalizations. Profani (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2010 (GMT)

There are some differences depending on country. However the lead appears confusing and I am changing it, which I hope will make it clearer. TFD (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article will be inherently problematic, due to difficulties generalizing internationally, and even within countries across the broad movements that could be called right wing populists. At the moment I think that there are problems with the lead. For example, I don't think that the Canadian Conservative party could seriously be called a right wing "populist" party. It appeals sometimes to populist rhetoric in the way that more or less all politicians do, but it is very much an establishment party that fundamentally follows in much the same tradition as the previous Liberal governments, even if its policies differ. Also, not all of these parties are "laissez faire" in a real sense, I think here of Scandinavian RRP parties. To me, the main unifying feature of these movements is anti-elitism, and a bent toward traditionalism or social conservatism. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Canadian RPP was the Reform Party of Canada and the lead mentions only one Scandinavian counttry, which has the Progress Party (Norway). I was just following what sources on the topic say.  If you have better sources then it would be helpful in improving the article.  Since the source was written the Danish People's Party, which is also considered a RPP, but does not have the same laisseq-faire approach was founded so it shows that the concept is flexible.  This family of poliical parties of course remains the most difficult to define.  I cam across a passage that explains this, and will look for it to add in.  TFD (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, the Reform Party I can buy... although since it has now been coopted by a cynical mainstream party I had almost forgotten their earlier idealism. I will try to add in more info, but not sure I have the time to look into properly sourcing everything right now, so may wait a bit. I would note though, that the laissez-faire thing in the intro is fairly misleading in my opinion as I think there are several RPPs that are anything but committed to laissez faire economics, at least not in practical implementation. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem may rest with the sources. They provide a description but also say it is difficult to categorize.  BTW the lead does not say that RPPs oppose the welfare state, just that they support laissez-faire liberalism.  Of course, their commitment is not the same as libertarians.  TFD (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
The lead paragraph refers to the definitions given by Betz (p. 4). However Betz defines Radical right-wing populism, while this article uses Betz's words to define Right-wing populism. This is misrpresentation of the source. Either we should rename the article Radical right-wing populism, or not use this source. - BorisG (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See  Article titles:  "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above".  Notice the lead says, "Scholars use terminology inconsistently, sometimes referring to right-wing populism as "radical right" or other terms".  Pippa Norris in fact references Betz in her book Radical Right (her preferred term), although she says various terms are used.  However, "right-wing populism" is the term most commonly used.  TFD (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, different terms are used. However the difficulty we face here is that different terms define slightly different phenomena or groupings (Unlike say Ted Kennedy vs Edward kennedy or 1973 Arab-Israeli War vs Yom Kippur War where the subject is clear but several titles are used to describe it). So depending on which title is used, some movements will be excluded or included. Using a title most commonly used and then using a definition from a source that uses a different term, is misrepresentation of the source. I agree that we should adhere to the naming rules and use the title that is most commonly used. But then it should be possible to find a definition of this term. As a random example, the radical right-wing populism will presumably exclude the UK Independence Party and Forza Italia but these parties may be included in right-wing populism. Presumably then, definitions will also be different. Using definiton of one term to define another term is misleading. - BorisG (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Authors may disagree over terminology, definitions, or subject matter, but they are in agreement that they are discussing the same thing. Betz himself uses several terms interchangeably.  Notice that in Right-wing extremism in the twenty-first century, the editors refer to Betz's book as "a widely quoted book on right-wing populism" (p. 8).  Betz himself is a contributor to this book.  TFD (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that radical right wing populism and right-wing populism are exactly the same thing? It would imply that the word 'radical' does not have a function. Sounds absurd to me. - BorisG (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same. Betz, who was an early writer, used the modifier "radical" but subsequent writers dropped it, as has Betz himself.  In this 2005 article, Betz uses the terms "radical right-wing populism" and "right-wing populism" interchangeably.  TFD (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The use of both terms in the same sentence (see the first sentence on Canada) implies some difference. The word radical is clearly reserved for Europe. - BorisG (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He does not use both phrases in the same sentence.  He refers to "right-wing populism" and "radical new populism".  Above it clearly states, "radical right-wing populism is hardly a phenomenon exclusive to Western Europe".  Betz grouped Canada's Reform Party with "radical right-wing populism" in Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe, p. 23.  If you want to learn more about the subject then I suggest you read the sources.  May I suggest that you take the chapter to someone you know and trust and ask them whether Betz is talking about two different concepts.  TFD (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality in the Lead
An IP has removed the source for the lead and re-written it saying, "Better the need for a citation than blatant POV". The source removed is Hans-Georg Betz's Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe, published by Palgrave Macmillan (1994), p. 4.  If the IP believes that the source is POV, he should provide evidence for that assertion or find a reliable source that describes the subject differently. Since Betz's book receives 606 Google scholar hits, it should not be difficult to demonstrate if his book is considered POV. TFD (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would argue a far more important problem with the sources argument is that it appears to greatly conflate a large spectrum of ideologies into a convenient strawman. I would argue that if one is setting up Liberalism (with any prefix before it) as opposed to social equality, then your simply setting up a false dichotomy. Also this debate seems to have developed into an openly scholastic discussion of 'the sources' (indeed without any eye to the verisimilitude of the concept itself. For example in the response above dose Betz ever consider the possibility that definition is either a conflation or a strawman? I have not read the book in its entirety but it appears he just jumps into it on p4 and runs from there 81.102.105.251 (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles must be based on reliable sources. If you believe that Betz is incorrect, then please provide a better source.  TFD (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your missing my point, The problems appear to be inherent in Betz's argument, a epistemic bias. If i were to expose it simply by going 'look here is a source that says so' i myself would be making an argument to authority. Your just being hugely scholastic about this now, an article belongs in an encyclopedia (and thus is presented as fact as least in this case that the concept has veracity) simply in virtue of having a reference to a published work? what your essentially saying is that my issues regarding the possibly fallacious nature of the concept and its definition itself (no one published or not is above making a straw man which having a background in modern political philosophy it looks like to me) is not valid unless I can cite a published article detailing said objections? Sorry thats absurd 81.102.105.251 (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:NEUTRAL and WP:OR. Articles are supposed to explain what experts say without our analysis.  If you dislike the policies, then you should take your discussion there.  TFD (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Leftwing populism?
There many Leftwing-poulist parties, for example in Germany Die Linke, I think this theme have to have a separat article.--77.2.21.248 (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Die Linke is not a populist party. TFD (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Die Linke" is a populist party, just watch the posters for the federal election in 2009. For example: "Raus aus Afghanistan!" (Out of Afghanistan), "Reichtum besteuern!" (Tax richness!)or "Reichtum für alle!" (Richness for everybody!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.60.172 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about right-wing populism, discussion of left-wing populism belongs elsewhere. TFD (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete or redo this article
How is right populism against social equality?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it necessarily is, but Betz apparently does. Furthermore, if we don't explain why it's right-wing, we also should not explain why it's populist.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism, free markets, and freedom have nothing to do with "right-wing populism"
Seriously, who writes these articles? First of all, "right-wing populism" is a highly subjective left-wing term used to slander people who do not accept socialism. This isn't even worth an article, it's just slander. Secondly, libertarianism is an ideology and has nothing to do with "right-wing populism". This articles seems to be written by socialists. It's complete nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.221.100 (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2012
 * I totally agree with your argument. This article looks like some serious propaganda or some kind of joke.--Marceloml (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is based on what sources say. If you have sources that provide a different account, please present them.  TFD (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself
The intro says that right-wing populism refers to laissez-faire liberals and then later says the term is used "inconsistently", including to refer to neo-fascists (who are not laissez-faire liberals, but typically economic nationalist protectionists). I see no coherent ideology, other than it acknowledging that there are populists who are right-wing or rightests who use populism. This article either needs a total rewrite or it should be merged into the Populism article. It currently has no coherent subject other than that there are populists who are right-wing. If the only coherent definition is simply populists who are right-wing, with no other unifying factors amongst all right-wing populists, then limit the article to that or merge it as a section or a few sentences in the Populism article.--R-41 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The intro does not say it refers to laissez-faire liberals. However I changed the wording because the source says that the "majority" (not all) support laisse-faire liberalism.  This is a substantial topic, supported by hundreds of books published in the academic press.  TFD (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just looking at what it says, it does not indicate any coherent ideology at all. One of the sources in the intro says: Pippa Norris noted that "standard reference works use alternate typologies and diverse labels categorising parties as 'far' or 'extreme' right, 'new right', 'anti-immigrant', 'neo-Nazi' or 'neofascist', 'antiestablishment', 'national populist', 'protest', 'ethnic', 'authoritarian', 'antigovernment', 'antiparty', 'ultranationalist', or 'neoliberal', 'libertarian' and so on". So what is this article saying? That "libertarian", "authoritarian", "neofascist", "neo-Nazi", "antiparty", and "neoliberal" people who happen to be populist and right-wing are part of a common ideology of right-wing populism?--R-41 (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement is sourced. We are supposed to reflect what sources say.  TFD (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have claim that academic sources I have used represent "fringe" arguments, or do not reflect academic opinion. So now it is your turn, how many other academic sources support the claims made by that sentence I noted above and its source?--R-41 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is an introduction to a book on right-wing populism that explains how academic scholars define the topic. As I said to you at DRN on fascism, "The type of source we should use I believe is an article on fascist ideology or an introduction or introductory chapter to a book on fascist ideology that outlines the major issues, how various scholars have addressed them and the degree of acceptance of these views."  The same applies to all articles.  Or as the administrator told you, ""identify[] a good source and work[] out what to take from it."  To answer your question, the description represents the minimum on what there is academic consensus.
 * Your approach as the administrator told you was to seek sources to prove a point which is bass ackwards. Your source however does not claim that it represents academic consensus, it clearly states that its claims are original, and Griffith's review states that the original views are unlikely to gain acceptance.
 * TFD (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question. How many other academic sources support the claims made by that sentence I noted above and its source?--R-41 (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you misrepresented the first sentence in the article I imagine none. Since the source explains the consensus in the academic community, i.e., no one opposes it, it might be hard to enumerate how many people support it.  How many academic sources are there for right-wing populism?  TFD (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to misrepresent it. "no one opposes it" - I find that hard to believe, where does it say or indicate that "no one opposes it" in the source? And if the numbers of works on "right-wing populism" are small, why not have it briefly mentioned in the Populism article?--R-41 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting boring. There is extensive literature about rw populism.  When writers present statements of fact, e.g., Washington is the capital of the United States, they do not then add "no one opposes this".  TFD (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You said "This is getting boring." Too bad, this needs discussion. Where does the source say or indicate that "no one opposes it", as in the definition that the source presents? Your comparison with it being "a statement of fact" like that Washington, D.C. is the capital of the USA, is a falsely-based comparison, this is supposed to be an analysis of a complex political concept, Your comparison of it to the location of a country's capital, is arbitrary. Do all the authors mean the same thing when they refer to a very loose and broad topic of "right-wing populism"? Are they saying that it is an actual common ideology with common goals, or are they referring to populism that is right-wing?--R-41 (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of asking me what this article says and what the sources say, you should read them. You keep saying "tell me what the article says", "tell me what the source says". I presume you have the ability to read both.  BTW the talk page is for recommending changes to the article.  TFD (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did recommend changes, my first comment said: "If the only coherent definition is simply populists who are right-wing, with no other unifying factors amongst all right-wing populists, then limit the article to that or merge it as a section or a few sentences in the Populism article." You are the one promoting this definition here and at Talk:Far-right, and no I do not have the time to read several whole books about right-wing populism. You should know what this topic is about and be able to respond to criticisms if you have invested time in this article.--R-41 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) Right wing populists are not defined as "populists who are right-wing" any more than paper tigers are defined as tigers that are paper. It is not like the articles left-wing nationalism or right-wing socialism. TFD (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The right-wing socialism article is the most stupid article I have made, upon reflection, I myself am calling for its deletion on the talk page, left-wing nationalism - several users have made sections for it - probably should be deleted too upon reflection. As for your comparison, it is again an arbitrary comparison - you need to stop making arbitrary comparisons, they are not logical. For instance you say that "paper tigers" are obviously not tigers made of paper but a metaphor, then by logical consistency of where your comparison should lead, then "right-wing populism" is neither right-wing nor populism but is a metaphor.--R-41 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be that they are neither right-wing nor populist. TFD (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then by that acknowledgement from your comparison, you should therefore be doubtful to bring it up as a topic on the Talk:Far-right politics, since that is about a variant of right-wing politics, and not about this that as you have just said could be just a metaphor with no relation to what the words actually mean. As you can see, it is logically inconsistent and clearly detached from what you are trying to convey, comparisons should be constructed and utilized carefully otherwise they can be arbitrary and illogical.--R-41 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "far right" is not necessarily "a variant of right-wing politics". See for example S.M. Lipset's "Fascism-Left, Right and Center".  Both are generally accepted terms used to describe specific ideologies.  Both the far right and rw populism are by definition part of the extreme right, which is not necessarily right-wing and usually not extreme.  I suppose a better example would be "Indigenous peoples of the Americas".  If we were writing the article c. 1500, it would be called "Red Indians".  Similarly Caribbean islands are still called the "West Indies".  Note that the article on "Red Indians" would not be include Indians who happened to be red.  In all cases the subject matter remains a topic, even if it is incorrectly named.
 * BTW the reason rw populism came up at far-right politics is that you decided to include these parties, which I opposed.
 * TFD (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Far-right is meant to refer to an extreme right-wing position far away from the political centre on the left-right spectrum. I never said that I supported the inclusion of such parties, I oppose the inclusion. You are mistaking someone else's edits with mine. By what you have just said, if it is a metaphor and has nothing to do with right-wing politics or populism, then what does the metaphor mean? And if it is like the term "Red Indians" as in your recent comparison, then do the use of the terms "right-wing" and "populism" have no meaning then? That is the implication of your comparison.--R-41 (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Political scientists observed that similar new parties were being created throughout the world, and decided to write about them.  However since unlike the older party families, e.g., liberals, socialists, these parties did not provide a name for their ideology, different political scientists used different terms to describe them, eventually settling on rw populism. Whether they are rw or populist, or even if those terms have any meaning, is immaterial - there is consensus that this political family exists and there is a huge amount of literature about them.
 * Also while the term "far right" was derived from the perception that these parties were the farthest on the right, it is generally used to describe ideologies that developed out of fascism or nazism. Whether or not they are really far right is irrelevant.
 * Bear in mind that these articles are about topics. This is not a dictionary.
 * TFD (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is a wonderful demonstration for the innate bias of Wikipedia
Who identifies himself as "right wing pupolist"? Not every pejorative ("neo-liberal" is borderline) deserves it's own article. Any way, this article does not reflect the fact stated above.

--MeUser42 (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the title should be changed, or that this article should be merged into an existing one, or that it needs a re-write, or that it shouldn't exist at all? Lone boatman (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does any party or individual self identifies as right wing populist? If so, the article should be improved with such refs. If, as I suspect. this is mainly used as a pejorative (i.e. by left-wing critiques)then this article should be deleted. --MeUser42 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think self-identification is the only valid reason for documenting an ideology. For example, there are parties around today that don't self-identify as Stalinist, but are demonstrably Stalinist and are commonly referred to as Stalinist by large numbers of observers outside their parties. This doesn't necessarily make it pejorative, but since Stalinism is deeply unpopular, its use is usually perceived to be pejorative. Either way, I can't think of a better term than Stalinist for talking about Stalinist parties. What's a better title for this article? Lone boatman (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone self identifies as populist right wing? --MeUser42 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. But as I said above, self-identification isn't the only factor to consider here. Lone boatman (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but this is a clear indication that the term is a pejorative. Right-wing politics#Contemporary parties section can house some of the content here, and the term populism should be dropped in favor of non biased terms (such as opposition to immigration or anti-immigration ext.). --MeUser42 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the parties listed in Hoxhaist self-identify as Hoxhaist. They probably think it's pejorative. But everybody outside their party calls them Hoxhaist, or Stalinist. Should Hoxhaist also be merged into Left-wing politics? Lone boatman (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And you can see: ""Hoxhaism" is an informal term used to refer...." further emphasizing my point. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you call right-wing populism an umbrella term for related ideologies? We could put something about that in the intro, to clarify that the term is used to describe parties with differing ideologies. Lone boatman (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We already do. "Classification of right-wing populism into a single political family has proved difficult, and it is not certain whether a meaningful category exists, or merely a cluster of categories, since the parties differ in ideology, organization, and leadership rhetoric."  TFD (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but I was thinking more of the first line in the intro. How about using the plural in the first line:
 * Right-wing populism is an umbrella term for political ideologies that reject existing political consensus and usually combine laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism. They are considered populism because of their appeal to the "common man" as opposed to the elites.
 * We cannot say it is an umbrella term, because most sources see it as a much stronger concept. TFD (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Better? Worse? Lone boatman (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: anti-immigration right I think is more neutral, and have right-wing populism refer to here. --MeUser42 (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can get consensus that an anti-immigration stance is the only common ideology to all of these parties, then I could support a name change. Do I understand you correctly, that you're saying some parties listed here are anti-immigration, but shouldn't be described as populist? Lone boatman (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case, a neutral term should be adopted if it is used to describe the ideology. People are not shy- they describe themselves. To use a pejorative in wikipedia is simply non NPOV. If this is not the name, then simply merge to contemporary right wing politics. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a read of Talk:Pink slime: note that there are three pages of talk archives at the upper right of that page. Nobody in the meat industry calls it pink slime, but lots of people outside the meat industry call it that. Wikipedia tends to use the more widely-used term to describe things, and not necessarily the term approved by the people involved.Lone boatman (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the same. People have opinions, and to use a pejorative as the name of the article for their opinions is respectfulness and biased. I think contemporary European right is the correct grouping. The US is a different matter.--MeUser42 (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Contemporary" is too broad: there are contemporary right-wing parties in Europe that aren't typically described as populist. Lone boatman (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We use the terms most commonly used in reliable sources, per WP:NAME. Even if we merge into "right-wing politics", we would still need to explain what this subgroup of the Right is called.  And since this subgroup is significant, we would then have to split out that subgroup into its own article.  TFD (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. used by who... --MeUser42 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. and in the context of politics, someone who is a critique has a vested interest, and only critiques cannot be the basis of an article. See many other grievances on this talk page. This is not my imagination, there is a problem. --MeUser42 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your problem appears to be with Wikipedia policies, rather than how they are applied in this article. As you wrote above, "This article is a wonderful demonstration for the innate bias of Wikipedia".  My advice is to get the policy changed.  TFD (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No not at all. This is far from what I said. My problem is with the biased use of a pejortive to define a political ideology. Basic common sense sais this is obviously not NPOV. Since no one self-identifies as right wing populist (as this is a pejorative) this is obviously not the right title for a neutral article in wikipedia. Do you deny this is not used by proponent but by opposers? --MeUser42 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Your problem seems to be with the sources rather than how we have presented them.  BTW you have not obtained consensus for your recent changes and I will reverse them.  TFD (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My recent changes are not what was discussed. Please explain your recent edit in a different paragraph. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
See here. I have reversed these changes because the changes to the lead do not reflect sources and an entire sourced section was removed. I notice that the opening sentence, which was sourced, was replaced with an unsourced statement. There has been discussion about the lead in the discussion thread above. Please do not re-insert these edits without discussion. TFD (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, these parties support "laissez faire" or some liberalisation? ==MeUser42 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually. See the lead:  "Right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and usually combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism."  TFD (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No offence, but that's ridicules (first you can't justify the lead by quoting it). No major party supports laissez faire, but specifically, the Swiss People's Party supports farm subsidies. A support for liberalization is not a support for "laissez faire". More correct- '...support economic liberalization'. --MeUser42 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not justifying the lead, merely answering your question. But we do not determine the definition of this topic by examining each party's policies, per no original research.  TFD (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, good, so this is a justified change... --MeUser42 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I do not understand your reasoning. Your change says that rw populist parties must meet all the criteria, which contradicts the source.  TFD (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To what specifically you object? For example, I have shown lassez faire to be wrong. To anti-immigration? --MeUser42 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not "shown laissez-faire to be wrong", you have merely provided an exception, which is why the lead says "usually". TFD (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of the parties support lassez faire? --MeUser42 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not our role to question statements in reliable sources by conducting our own surveys and forming our own conclusions. TFD (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, this is a simple question. Which of the parties supports lassez faire? If this is true, what is one example? (and another question- which of the sources say that?) --MeUser42 (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(out) Please see WP:NOTAFORUM: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages." I have posted the "not a forum" template at the top of this discussion page. If you want to ask questions about the subject, you may try the help desk.

Since your position appears to be that no parties support laissez-faire, it would be more straightforward to say that at the outset, rather than commence a time-consuming socratic process. What matters though is what sources say, not our individual analyses. TFD (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, please assume good faith, I was asking to know. I gather (implicitly) you do not see any of the parties supporting lassez faire. I also, could not find any of them supporting lassez faire, in which case the data is false. Not by some independent analysis, but a simple look at the facts. Which source says lassez faire? --MeUser42 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. TFD (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, please see my last question. If not, let's take it to arbitration or something. How does these things work around here? --MeUser42 (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do not like a definition used in an article than you need to find a source that describes it better. TFD (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which source describes it as lasseiz faire? --MeUser42 (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Help:Footnotes for an explanation of how sources are presented in articles. TFD (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The passage is sourced. If you do not understand how referencing and footnoting work, then follow the link, or ask for help at the helpdesk.  TFD (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire passage is sourced, and I don't know if the source also supports the lasseiz faire statement as it is a book. I have shown, at least some, evidence for the statement to be false (it is false), and so you would agree it is suspicious. The source is a book, how do I verify? If we cannot, and this is shown to be false, this should be removed... --MeUser42 (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You write above, "I also, could not find any of them supporting lassez faire". Could you tell me what source you are using for your list of right-wing populist parties and we can see what general description it provides.  What is your definition of "laissez faire" - is it so strict that Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard and Nigel Farage cannot be seen as supporting it?  TFD (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, there does not exist a definition of laissez faire as strict as you mention, in least in regards to Paul and Rothbard. My definition of laissez faire is this. If you support farm subsidies you do not support laissez faire but at most economic liberalization. Thus, it would be a better term :). --MeUser42 (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know the position of all these parties on farm subsidies, and can find nothing written about it. However, we cannot use our own definitions (or those of wikipedia).  One could argue for example that NAFTA does not support free trade, yet sources describe it as a free trade agreement.  The term used btw is not laissez-faire, but laissez-faire liberalism, which is a synomym for classical and neo-classical liberalism which did not support total laissez-faire all the time.  TFD (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting distinction. I couldn't find the source (as it is only a book). In any case I changed it to economic liberalism, which, as you can see, is a less confusing description, which you say is equivalent, and so should be changed.--MeUser42 (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It means the same thing. I think it is more confusing, because some people may think it refers to Keynsian economics.  TFD (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hu? What? To the contrary. It's must more likely to be interpreted with just laissez-faire. I assure you. I am pretty knowledgeable and was not aware of such a distinction. --MeUser42 (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In mainstream writing, laissez-faire liberalism and economic liberalism are synonyms. It could be that your group's jargon distinguishes between the two terms, which would be interesting and could you please provide a link.  TFD (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "economic liberalism" fetches 445,000 results in google. The term "laissez-faire liberalism" fetches 56,100 which do not seem distinct from laissez-faire. I have not, at all, encountred the distinction of laissez-faire liberalism being more moderate then just lassez-faire. In any case, even if they are equivelent we should use the far more common one, as a not so common term will much more easily be wrongly interpreted. --MeUser42 (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what relevance the number of google hits has. But I googled "laissez-faire liberalism" and the first rs was an article in The Guardian, "Laissez-faire with strip-searches: America's two-faced liberalism''.  It uses the terms "laissez-faire liberalism" and "economic liberalism" as synonyms to describe the US, a country btw that has massive agricultural subsidies.  "Economic liberalism" is more likely to be misinterpreted because it could refer to the economic policies of US liberals.  TFD (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha! I see. This is a cultural issue. I'm more concerned that this (less common) "lassez-faire liberalism'" term will be confused with the (more common) term simply lassez-faire. You think of liberalism as associated with social-democratic policies, probably because you are from the US. In most countries outside the US (as where I live) liberalism is more associated with free-market policies. In the US- it's upside down. Mmm... I therefore propose a compromise- "...favor's free-market reforms". Maybe this is more culture neutral. What do you think? --MeUser42 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds worse. Where btw are you getting these shades of meaning for economic vs laissez faire liberalism.  AFAIK they both mean the same thing, support for free markets.  Also, it is not a cultural thing.  Keynes, who happened to be neither American nor a social democrat, was a liberal and an economist.  TFD (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the US liberalism is assciated with social democractic policies. In Japan, France, Belgium ext it's associated with free market policies. Economic liberalism is thus not a confusing term. lassez faire is a support of a virtually pure free market, and thus the use of a much less common term is confusing. My proposal is less culturally biased, is all. --MeUser42 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Acually in the US liberalism is associated with reform liberal policies, not social democracy. Now please provide a source that says "laissez-faire liberalism" and "economic liberalism" are different concepts.  TFD (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Outside the US reforms such as Obamacare and politicians such as Nancy Pelosi are advocated by, and called social-democratic. This term is always in the media in a very positive connotation (in France and Israel, where I lived), just FYI. If economic liberalism is the same as lassez-faire liberalism, yet, is a much more common term- we should use it. If not, we should find a term which avoids a possible confusion with simply lassez-faire. Please constructively advance towards a compramise per WP:CONS. For instance, I offered free market reforms as a possible alternative which you haven't given any real reason not to accept. I welcome other ideas as well. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source that economic liberals or laissez-faire liberals do not support laissez-faire. (Free market reforms implies that right-wing populists normally intend free market reforms, while it may merely mean that they accept the free market policies already in place.  And it is more limited in scope - it does not for example mean lower taxes.  BTW universal health care is also supported by non-socialists in Europe - the modern welfare state in Germany was developed by ordoliberals.)  TFD (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Danish People's party - Ethnic Nationalism? What?
Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral center of information. It is not supposed to interfere in public opinion, be a center to use propaganda against others and so on.

It is therefore I think it is wrong to say that DPP and other parties like it are Right-Wing populists, Extreme, but worse of all, Ethnic Nationalists. These are not what you can see in what the parties stand for and their political ideology. DPP are much more center-right than far-right. They believe in the welfare state, they believe in social equality, they believe in a multi-ethical society with a mono-culture.

I feel that placing them, and many other parties, as a ethical nationalists are really against Wikepedia's term of being neutral. They have several immigrants in their party and they believe in a nation with a common culture. Think of them as how much you like outside in the normal world, I don't care, but here they, and every other party in this section, should be met with a fair and neutral review.

I can understand why this page is up, after all Wikipedia's job is to give information at different subjects, but I do think that you should re-edit this article to saying that these are parties DESCRIBED as right-wing populists! I have never ever heard a party describe itself as right-wing populists so we shouldn't say they are just because other parties or the media says so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.82.14 (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That such a political family exists is supported by sources and they mostly if not all belong to Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD), meaning that they self-identify as being ideologically similar. Unfortunately, unlike other ideologies, they do not agree on a name to describe themselves and therefore any name will meet objections from some of them.  Both the Danish Party and the EFD sit to the right of all other parties in their parliaments, and are populists.  Can you think of a better name to call this group?  TFD (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I can. What about National Conservative. The fact that some parties in EFD call themselves that doesn't mean that the DPP is Ethnic Nationalists. They believe that people should be allowed to move to their country, as long as when they moved in to their country, they would adapt to their country's rules and laws. They don't believe that Denmark is an immigrant country, like the USA for example, and therefore don't think that Denmark should have a mass-immigration. However, meaning that they don't want mass-immigration doesn't mean that they don't want people to move there and live together, they just want to those who come to live there to adapt the Danish Culture and Danish laws.


 * I have followed the group EFD very much and although I personally am sceptical to some of the parties in the group, like Lega Nord, I can't see that they are against foreigners or other Ethnic groups. UK Independence Party (UKIP), for example, are not at all Ethnic Nationalists and they make that very clear, like whenever they are linked to the British National Party (BNP) they are very clear that they do not accept their way of thinking. So the EFD is a group with very different parties, DPP is in that group because all of the parties share the same ideology of the EU, they don't want it. They think that as long as their countries are a part of the EU, they should do as much as possible to make the Union get as little influence on their nations as possible. So that's why DPP are a part of EFD, not because they are racists (which I can't see the EFD being either) but because of their Euroscepticism.


 * And unless I have completely misunderstood the term Ethnic Nationalists, that the term means something else and not meaning that they are against people of different ethnic groups to move to their country, they should not be called Ethnic Nationalists for they are clearly not for a "White Denmark". There are many other parties that are for a "White Denmark" and want all immigrants and people with different colours thrown out, but DPP is not one of them.


 * So therefore, I think that they should not be called Ethnic Nationalists as it is more of a lefty view, rather than a serious term when you talk about what kind of party DPP is. It is also quite important for Wikipedia to remain neutral in these things, because many people have much trust in Wikipedia, don't let that change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.252.9 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the unsourced sentence, the only reference to ethnic nationalism. So you agree that the category exists, but question the name.  "National conservative" is a poor choice.  It is only used in some countries and has connotations of continuity with Nazi Germany.  The term conservative is considered pejorative in many European countries because of its association with parties that collaborated with Nazi Germany.  Even in the Nordic countries where this did not happen, conservatives have changed their names.  RW Populist parties are distinct from conservative parties, do not share their ideology and mostly do not claim to.  If anything they embrace the ideology of classical liberalism.  Do you not think they are right-wing or do you not think they are populist?  BTW when you say "Lefty", does that refer to the mainstream liberal, conservative and christian democratic parties?  TFD (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think national conservatism is a poor choice at all. The book "Dictionary Of Public Administration", Sarup & Sons. on page 306, it describes national conservatism: "National conservatism is a political term used primarily in Europe to describe a variant of conservatism which concentrates more on national interests than standard conservatism as well as upholding cultural and ethnic identity". There isn't anything in the ideology itself that says that they support ethnic nationalism or want to preserve the ethnic group they belong to. Also, it says "In Europe, national conservatives are usually eurosceptics" which DPP fits very well to since they are Eurosceptics. However, if you really think another term should be used, I suggest Cultural nationalism as well as Liberal nationalism


 * Living in Europe, I'd say that the term Conservative in Scandinavia is a term we rarely say. The parties on the right often call themselves "liberals" even the Progress Party like to call themselves "liberals". This is more because the parties don't want to go into the same category as the Republican party and Scandinavia is a very liberal part of Europe so they often want to be more seen as liberal rather than conservative, although some people do call themselves conservatives, but nobody really care that much anymore. So it has nothing to do with Nazism. However, if you're speaking about Sweden, then you are correct. Sweden has had a very big problem with Nazism, which the Government has stroked quite hard against.


 * Personally I think that the term "Right-Wing populists" is a stupid thing to call any of these parties and I can't take it seriously, mainly because it says that they reject social equality, which I can't see either DPP, the Norwegian Progress party or any of the other parties doing. However, that is my opinion and opinions are not supposed to be promoted on Wikipedia. I see "Right-Wing populists" more as a term, rather than an ideology that parties promote. I am for this article, because I think it is important that people should know what it means to be "Right-Wing populists", however, I think it is wrong to say that parties like the DPP is, straight out, "Right-Wing populists", and think that it should rather be "Parties that are called/seen as Right-Wing populists".


 * "Do you not think they are right-wing or do you not think they are populist?" I think that they are not right-wing. They have adopted many of the values the Danish Social democrats used to have before in the 70's and before that and they believe in the welfare state as well as taking care of the elderly. You can call them populists, even though they never refer to themselves as such, because they often say they fight for "the people" and want to promote the people's interest as much as possible.


 * When I say lefty view, I think of everything from the common people, to the left-wing parties or the mainstream media. Basically anything or anyone that shares the form of political correctness amongst the debates of immigration, culture and national identity and not someone who is seriously discussing these ideologies based on neutral and serious discussion. And when I say that "Right-Wing Populism" is more of a term used by leftist, I mean that opposers of these parties uses this term to devalue these parties and uses master suppression techniques in order to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.252.9 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If I may comment: It is true that Dansk folkeparti is not a purely "right-wing" party in every sense of the term. But it is ludicrous to say that on the whole they are not more right wing than left. They supported the right of centre Venstre-Koservative government for 10 years, but despise the current left leaning government. The DF is very clearly a populist party, constantly railing against "elites", and they are also generally in favour of rightist economic policies, although they do indeed support many aspects of the social welfare state (which is itself a part of their populism). However, support for the care of the elderly, etc... is hardly a super leftist concept in the context of Scandinavia. My advice would be to add in reliable sources discussing the issue. You can qualify the inclusion of DF in this category, mentioning some of their differences from other parties grouped here. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We are required to use the terminology that mainstream sources use. TFD (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ? That's exactly what I just said.... In fact many "mainstream" sources call it "radical right wing populism", which I think is a more accurate term than simply "right wing populism" which could mean just about anything. But that is a boat that sailed long ago on Wikipedia. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was replying to the IP. The most common name today is RWP.  We discussed this before (above).  Naming categories of right-wing groups is always problematic.  And they of course choose moderate descriptions for themselves such as liberals, conservatives, democrats, and believe they are outside the political spectrum.  TFD (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of the literature
There is a fundamental confusion inherent within this page.

The British National Party and the Dutch Centre Party (and CP'86) are considered extreme right (radical right) parties, this is generally accepted among the literature on right wing extremism. The problem with this page, however, is that parties such as the United Kingdom Independence Party has been included which, according to a substantial body of literature, not least British scholars, should not be considered a constituent member of the extreme (radical) right. Extreme right parties can be categorised in a number of ways, depending upon whose classification you follow. Neither Ignazi nor Carter (2005) classification is appropriate for the United Kingdom Independence Party.

Mudde (1995) determined that within the bulk of the literature on the extreme right, five recurring features can be seen: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy, and a strong state. When looking at Koch's (1991) definition of nationalism in terms of internal homogenisation (only people belonging to X nation have the right to live within X state) and external exclusiveness (state X needs to have all people belonging to the X-nation within its borders), we can quite clearly see that UKIP does not meet these criteria. Neither do we witness any congruence between the new (culturism) and old racisms and the policies of UKIP. The inclusion of the strong state has fell out of favour more recently, with even Mudde distancing himself from it as the ideals of a strong state (anti-pluralism, law and order, and militarism) can be witnessed within non-extremist right wing and conservative, or christian democratic parties.

When using Carter's (2005) classification (neo-nazi; neo-fascist authoritarian xenophobic; neo-liberal xenophobic; neo-liberal populist) UKIP is not appropriate either. Indeed, on a number of occasions, Carter has made it clear that she believes that UKIP should not be included within discussions of the Extreme Right.

It thus stands to reason that Wikipedia needs to be more clear about which parties it is lumping together as extremist/radical. A number of parties within this list are not appropriate, and this is particularly true for the United Kingdom Independence Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.122.80 (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a recent paper discussing UKIP and the extreme right. It says that Mudde and most other writers do not classify UKIP as extreme right, but see it as borderline or single issue.  However this article is about right-wing populism.  There btw extensive discussion of the issue in the UKIP talk pages.  TFD (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * While this may be a page about right-wing populism, by including parties which I have outlined above, it is entirely plausible to assume that individuals reading this page might confuse the parties and assume they are all similar. Surely Wikipedia seeks to clarify not confuse? GM1  (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The same is true about any article about political ideology. Tony Blair and Pol Pot were both leaders of socialist parties, yet were farther apart than the BNP and UKIP.  TFD (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that you can state that Tony Blair led a socialist party. This is most certainly not true. Under Tony Blair, the Labour Party abandoned any shred of socialism it once had and adopted neo-Thatcherite policies to ensure electability. Tony Blair's Labour Party was as socialist as Thatcher was... not at all. GM1  (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One could say that under Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative Party abandoned conservatism and adopted neo-liberal policies. It is still considered a conservative party.  One could equally question whether Pol Pot was socialist.  Incidentally, UKIP sits with rw populist parties in the European parliament and has similar policies.  TFD (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Labour and Conservative parties sit with unpleasant parties in the European Parliament, does that define what they are as well? Either way, as interesting as this is, it does not resolve the issue that this page seems to intentionally confuse the types of parties and thus suggests that UKIP is of the extreme right given the inclusion of the other parties GM1  (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not know what you mean by "intentionally confuse." 173 different editors have contributed to the article.  If experts say that both the BNP and UKIP are right-wing populist parties then they have created the confusion, if indeed any exists.  I suggest you go to the UKIP article, where the issue has been extensively discussed and a large number of sources have been provided for UKIP being a right-wing populist party.  TFD (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Laissez-faire liberalism?
The introduction of the article is inadequate and/or out-of-date in the way it represents modern "right-wing populism", which is a term often broadly used to describe nationalist, anti-immigrationist parties:


 * "Right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects the existing mainstream political discourse (sometimes including current right-wing policies) and usually combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism ... advocating market liberalization amongst other right-wing causes"

In the Western European context, this is becoming increasingly uncommon (especially after the financial crisis of 2007–08). Most Nordic nationalist parties, along with the Front National under MLP, have favoured what could perhaps be called "centre-left" economics – the maintenance of the welfare state and the protection of domestic industry. Sometimes the "left-leaning" economic suggestions even surpass those of the established social democratic/socialist parties.

Therefore, it could be argued that there are at least two major streams of nationalist politics in Western Europe: those who favour the more "classical liberal" or "libertarian" approach, which is generally more popular at the moment in Britain, the German and Dutch-speaking parts, Norway and Italy; and those who favour the more "social democratic" or "socialistic" approach, which is more popular in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and France. Hayden120 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead once said, "Right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and usually combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism. It is considered populism because of its appeal to the "common man" as opposed to the elites." That is closer to the source and I will restore it.
 * If you think the lead is wrong or outdated, then you should present a more recent source that provides a better description. But we should not change it because of what we observe.
 * TFD (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't change anything without presenting a source. I just wanted to raise the topic here first to see if others had thoughts on it. I'll need to look around for more scholarly sources. For the moment, here are a couple of articles on the matter: Hayden120 (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Independent Greeks (ANEL)
The Independent Greeks political party is classified as being a right-wing populist party on its article and it currently sits in the Greek Cabinet. However, the party isn't even mentioned on this article, and the map showing right-wing populist parties in Europe doesn't show Greece as having a right-wing populist party in its government. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Right-wing populism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Right-wing populism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hainsworth": From Progress Party (Denmark): Paul Hainsworth (2008). The Extreme Right in Western Europe. Routledge. p. 49 From Popular Orthodox Rally:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Switzerland is wrong color of RW populism map
I originally posted this on the talk page of the map showing RW populist parties in the governments of European countries, but apparently, no one has noticed my post. Switzerland is shaded with the wrong color. Right now, it is shaded in the medium blue, but it should be the darkest blue because the seven members of the Swiss Federal Council technically all are the heads-of-state of the country. It should be changed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Right-wing populism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Right-wing populism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Magone": From List of active nationalist parties in Europe:  From Syriza:  From Attack (political party):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Right-wing populism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107195132/http://www.vlaamsparlement.be:80/vp/index.html to http://www.vlaamsparlement.be/vp/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103095534/http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=283673 to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=283673
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716202607/http://www.laos.gr/PROGRAM_LAOS.pdf to http://www.laos.gr/PROGRAM_LAOS.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714203430/http://carleton.ca/rera/wp-content/uploads/2012-issue7-v1-Nedelcupdf1.pdf to http://carleton.ca/rera/wp-content/uploads/2012-issue7-v1-Nedelcupdf1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107122821/http://www.nowaprawicajkm.pl:80/info/program-wyborczy/program-kongresu-nowej-prawicy/item/program-kongresu-nowej-prawicy to http://www.nowaprawicajkm.pl/info/program-wyborczy/program-kongresu-nowej-prawicy/item/program-kongresu-nowej-prawicy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't Russia dark blue (or even better, black)?
Seems very strange that the governments in Norway, Finland and Switzerland are depicted ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Right-wing_populist_parties_in_European_national_parliaments_(March_2016).png ), as more right-wing populist than Russia. Russia certainly scores lower on democracy-indexes ( http://en.actualitix.com/country/wld/democracy-index.php ), corruption-indexes ( http://transparency.org.nz/images/2014/CPI2014-map-and-country-results.jpg ), freedom of the press indexes (https://rsf.org/en/ranking), and xenophobia indexes ( http://observationdeck.kinja.com/countries-ranked-by-non-xenophobia-458586041 ). So, please explain why Putin isn't representing the worst kind of right-wing populism.84.210.8.8 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Because experts have chosen not to include the main governing party, United Russia as right-wing populist. Per policy, articles consider parties to be right-wing populist if that is the consensus in reliable sources, rather than making an independent assessment.  TFD (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Experts? If you put all the different elements which determines how right-wing populistic a party is, I can guarantee you that United Russia scores higher for all the different elements which determines how right-wing populistic a party is. So, why don't you make a table of all the elements which determines how right-wing populistic a party is, and compare the policies of Norway, Switzerland and Finland with Russia. The "Experts" that think Norway, Switzerland and Finland are more right-wing populistic than Russia must be complete morons, and should not be regarded experts at all.... It is actually amazingly ignorant. At least, if you are going to use this picture at all, you must have a reference to a source which compares the different elements which determines how right-wing populistic a country is... 84.210.8.8 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We are obliged to follow the policies of no original research and no synthesis. If you think the experts are ignorant, then confront them, or get the policy changed.  The chart does not say Norway, etc., are more rw populist, merely that they have rw populist parties in government.  Putin btw does not meet much of the criteria mentioned in the article, such as "rejects the current political consensus" or "appeal to the "common man" as opposed to the elites."  TFD (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Putin rejects the western European political consensus. Of course he doesn't reject the political consensus in his own country, which is created by him and his political party. According to this way of thinking, none of the western European right-wing populists will be right-wing populists anymore once their policies become consensus. I also think you are wrong about Putin not appealing to the common man. Much of Russia's foreign policy (such as the invasion of Crimea), is to please the "common man". At least it made him much more popular in the eyes of the "common man".84.210.8.8 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A key policy of Wikipedia is that we may only report what a wp:reliable source says. Tempting as it is at times (but especially in this case), we have to draw the line at editors drawing their own conclusions about what the evidence means. These policies are wp:synthesis (especially) and wp:no original research. We have to have these policies because different conclusions can be drawn by different people from even reliable evidence so the only way to avoid that is to ban everyone from doing it. So here is your challenge: find a reliable source that says United Russia is an RWPP and we will certainly include it.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are some articles I just found:
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X16000039 ( and all the articles linked to there: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0967067X/49/1 )
 * https://imrussia.org/images/stories/Russia_and_the_World/Putin-Far-Right/alina-polyakova_putinism-european-far-right.pdf
 * http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Populism-in-Europe-and-Its-Russian-Love-Affair.pdf
 * If this isn't enough for you, I can probably find a 100 more by wasting my time on searching a little for you.
 * Edit: I see that the last article I linked to has a nice graph ( http://i.imgur.com/DLH4m9k.png ). Seems like something nice to include on this page. Do you want me to make a graph like that for you?84.210.8.8 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * None of your sources say that Putin, his government or his United Russia are right-wing populist. TFD (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The title of the first article I linked to is "Putin's Russia as a fascist political system". Fascist political ideologies are usually defined as right-wing. There are also of course tons of places in these articles where they link Russia to right-wing populism. If you have reading difficulties, I can read through the articles, and give a 100 different quotes here if you want. Maybe that will make it easier for you? Also, there are lots of half naked pictures of Putin on the Internet. He loves to depict himself as a macho alpha male. Such behavior is usually associated with populism.84.210.8.8 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It has already been explained to you that you need a source that makes a claim that Putin or his party are right-wing populism, not your personal reasoning. And I wish you would read through these and any other articles and find at least one quote.  TFD (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that in the reference to your illustration ( http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/russia.html ), it says Centrism and Statism for United Russia. However, in your Wikipedia article about United Russia it says Putinism and National Conservatism. The problem with country comparisons like what you have in the map, is that the entire political spectrum is shifted between countries. So the most right-wing party in one country, doesn't necessarily even come close the the most right-wing party in another country. Still, in the context of their own countries, both of them might be referenced to as right-wing. Since the political spectrum is so different in Russia compared to western democracies, maybe you should exclude Russia from the map, and rather write a section about the relationship between western European right-wing populism and Russia and Putinism. 85.19.205.254 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As a side note. I see that all of the government parties listed as right-wing populistic here (Finnland: Finns Party, Norway: Progress Party, Switzerland: Swiss People's Party ), also are list as national conservative political parties in the National conservatism article, together with United Russia.85.19.205.254 (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Right-wing populism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Right-wing populism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Connolly": From European Conservatives and Reformists: </li> <li>From Direct Democracy Ireland: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Right-wing populism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Right-wing populism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WELT":<ul> <li>From German Freedom Party: </li> <li>From Pro Germany Citizens' Movement: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Too many images
Recently even more images have been included in this article. Now there are over a dozen pictures, mostly of individuals regarding the countries. It would be better to take some out, and reduce the amount to a favorable average. --Joobo (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Patriotic Spring
I propose that we merge Patriotic Spring here. This 2006 article already covers Geert Wilders and related parties, and is vastly better written than Patriotic Spring, started two months ago. "Patriotic Spring" is a term coined by Wilders, and is just one of several terms used for what's described in this article. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Why merging? To me it is about two different points here. Though one might mention it of course.  Joobo (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it different? I'm not suggestion deletion of Patriotic Spring, rather that most of that article is a summary of this one. It's certainly worth mentioning the use of the term here, in a section. But how is the term notable enough for a whole separate article? Uncle Roy (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Right-wing populism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vlaamsparlement.be/vp/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521161601/http://www.ilfoglio.it/soloqui/8528 to http://www.ilfoglio.it/soloqui/8528
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nowaprawicajkm.pl/info/program-wyborczy/program-kongresu-nowej-prawicy/item/program-kongresu-nowej-prawicy
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/switzerland.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025055218/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw99-2000/switzerland.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw99-2000/switzerland.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.keele.ac.uk/research/lpj/kgemenis/download/Gemenis-Dinas-CEP.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003071247/http://www.minutodigital.com/noticias/2010/04/22/josep-anglada-ser-populista-identitario-es-ser-hondamente-democratico/ to http://www.minutodigital.com/noticias/2010/04/22/josep-anglada-ser-populista-identitario-es-ser-hondamente-democratico/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Error on RW populism Europe map -- UK
Regarding File:Right-wing populist parties in European national parliaments (Oct 2017).png, which is linked on this article, the UK should be shaded either light or medium blue, because the Democratic Unionist Party is in the parliament and supports the Conservative Party government. The DUP is a right-wing populist party (see here -- source: Ingle, Stephen (2008). The British Party System: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 156.).

I would fix this if I knew how to change the map. I would appreciate it if someone else would do it. Thanks. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, factions of the UK Conservative Party are right-wing populist, as this article notes, so Britain should at least be some shade of blue. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * An editor at Commons fixed the map after I requested it. Many thanks. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Right-wing populism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Right-wing populism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OrbanEUobserver":<ul> <li>From Hungarian parliamentary election, 2018: </li> <li>From Fidesz: </li> </ul>

Reference named "MurphyKheraToI":<ul> <li>From Fidesz: </li> <li>From Hungarian parliamentary election, 2018: </li> </ul>

Reference named "OrbanReuters":<ul> <li>From Fidesz: </li> <li>From Hungarian parliamentary election, 2018: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Neoliberal populism section
An identical copy of this substantial new section has just been placed in at least 5 articles. I think that this is good work that needs to be placed somewhere but placing 5 identical copies in 5 articles seems like a bad idea. Probably we should revert and ask them to just put it it in the most relevant article. BTW I plan to do the same with this post in all of those articles. :-) <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

There is no such thing as Right-Wing populism
Right-wing politics are elitist by definition, and populism is anti-elitist by definition. The idea that there can be a Right-wing populism is nonsense. When we label something as Right-Wing Populism we are mis-labelling it; it cannot be both elitist and anti-elitist.

The use of the term Right-Wing has become so mixed up that discussion of it is becoming impossible. LeapUK (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * whose definition is that?? Better read: 1) Rydgren, Jens. Movements of exclusion: Radical right-wing populism in the Western world (2005); 2) Harrison, Trevor. Of passionate intensity: right-wing populism and the Reform Party of Canada ( U of Toronto Press, 1995); 3) Wodak, Ruth. Right-wing populism in Europe: politics and discourse (2013); 4) Judis, John B. "Right-Wing Populism Could Hobble America for Decades." New Republic (2013); 5) Hogan, Jackie, and Kristin Haltinner. "Floods, Invaders, and Parasites: Immigration Threat Narratives and Right-Wing Populism in the USA, UK and Australia." Journal of Intercultural Studies 36.5 (2015): 520-543.  Rjensen (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That is an etymological fallacy. One could argue they are not right wing and not populist but that is what they are called.  TFD (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what the RS say. If the RS say they are right wing populists we report that--we do not argue with the RS. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Right-wing politics aren't innately elitist. They all have a strong focus on "our" group to the exclusion of others, and they tend to favour the rich, but the groups aren't always defined in socioeconomic status. Right-wing populism is just the harnessing of anti-elitist sentiment to promote conservative or nationalist policy. The broader goals don't actually need to make sense, they just need to feel good. e.g.: "The rich inner city elite want to take your hard earned tax dollars;" sounds good and aggravating but makes no sense as the rich inner city elite tend to benefit the most from tax cuts. - MVHVTMV (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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

See also section
Beyond My Ken I do not see why would they be interested in something that is solely related to right-wing politics not to right-wing populism. If this was right-wing article I would understand your objection but since it's not I don't. Polyison (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Use a broader brush. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have never seen the reason to list a topic under see also when it is already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the norm to remove items from the 'see also' if they are mentioned in the body. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is also what WP:See also suggests. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The See Also list includes topics not really related to right-wing populism, like Christian Right or Dark Enlightenment, unless you consider listing subjects which are on the right, and not specifically the populist right. Azerty82 (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war
I hope this edit war hasn't been caused by my recents edits in #definitions. I tried to give three definitions, one global by Mudde (nativism,authoritarianism,populism), with nativism being a xenophobic form of nationalism; and thereafter one by Camus & Lebourg oriented on the strategies & methods; and one by Eatwell, some will say more lenient, but that highlights the deep motivations of national populists. I hope my today's edits have made the whole section clearer. Azerty82 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Azerty, your edits were not the cause. The cause is quite simple: there are people here who will go to the ends of the earth to prevent right-wing mastermind Steve Bannon's remarks to the National Front -- in which he implicitly admitted that right-wing populism is xenophobic, nativist, and racist -- from appearing in this article.  They objected when the material consisted only of a straight-forward description of Bannon's remarks, they objected when his remarks were buttressed with unimpeachable academic sources which confirmed what he said, they objected when additional details were added from other sources, and they objected after I moved the material to a section about the National Front. In short, they are bound-and-determined that this material not appear on Wikipedia.They are, in point of fact, WP:CENSORing information that they disagree with, whitewashing the article (and right-wing politics} of ideas they don't want the public to read.  I've never seen, in my 14 years here, a more blatantly obvious attempt to force a political POV on an article - there's simply no other way to account for the great energy they have put into this campaign across multiple articles to deprive Wikipedia's readers of pertinent information. If their campaign succeeds, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia, whose readers deserve to know that a handful of like-minded editors can control the content of political articles simply by block voting not in favor of what's best for our articles, or our readers, but what's best for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are exaggerating Bannon's importance in European right-wing populism. Few of their leaders want to meet him and even the FN leader said she wasn't interested in Bannon because he "Mr Bannon is not from any European country, he is American." (I think that may be coded language, in which case it is even stronger language than it sounds.) TFD (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces, this argument from you seems to be a No true scotsman fallacy, given that Bannon literally delivered those words on-stage with Le Pen. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not following you. What does any of this have to do with the No True Scotsman? Perhaps you are confusing it with some other story. TFD (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bannon is widely regarded as a right-wing leader, even having served a stint as the right-hand man of the President of the United States. Bannon is widely regarded as, specifically, a leader in right-wing populism; there are literal quotes to that effect so strong that they are in the lede of the article about him on Wikipedia. When he gave the speech, he was literally standing on the same stage as Marine Le Pen, the leader of (sourced right in this article) the "prototypical populist radical right-wing party" and "most successful populist party of Europe as of 2015".
 * So when you attempt to say that his importance is being "exaggerated" because he's "not important", that's just ridiculous. And to claim "few of their leaders want to meet him" based on misrepresenting an article from October 8, 2018 when he then was literally on stage with Le Pen herself less than a month later? That's "no true scotsman". What you appear to be trying to claim is that he doesn't "really count" as a right-wing populist via some incredible stretching and distortion. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are drawing a lot of connections that are not immediately obvious and therefore would require a secondary source to connect the dots. For example, what relevance is there that Bannon served Trump when Trump is not considered a right-wing populist in reliable sources? And while Bannon may be a leader of right-wing populism, he is not the leader. You make something about his attendance at the FN conference, but party conferences typically invite people with a range of views. Tulsi Gabbard for example spoke at the DNC convention, but that does not mean she represents the mainstream Democratic view. You need a secondary source that explains this. And while the FN is a right-wing populist party, you need a source that their view on this issue is the same as the other right-wing populist parties. While your analysis may be correct, NOSYN says that any analysis must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If you think this speech is relevant and of such great significance that it should be mentioned, then you should be able to find a source that says that. I know that textbooks take a long time to come out, but there are experts, such as Cas Mudde and Luke March who routinely write articles about developments in the subject. TFD (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that when I provided two axcademic sources to "connect the dots" the Bannon quote was deleted anyway. This discussion has been an exercise in goalpoat moving designed to prevent the quote from being used in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "And while the FN is a right-wing populist party, you need a source that their view on this issue is the same as the other right-wing populist parties" - That, right there, is attempted No true scotsman. And it's taken to an absurdist level given the earlier quotes already in the article that The Four Deuces is ignoring. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me explain the No True Scotsman story, since you seemed to have missed the point. A Scotsman reading about he criminal says he could not be a Scotsman. When told he was, the proud Scot says he cannot be a true Scotsman. Your interpretation of the story is that because one Scotsman is a criminal all Scotsmen are criminals. In this case, the fact that Bannon's comments were racist and well-received by one right-wing populist party does not mean that all right-wing populist parties are. Nor has anyone used the True Scotsman argument that because the is racist it is not a true right-wing populist party. Everyone agrees that racism is a key element of some if not all right-wing populist parties. Fortunately there are experts who write books and articles about right-wing populism and we can use them to make the points you want to include rather than presenting our personal conclusions. TFD (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "A Scotsman reading about he criminal says he could not be a Scotsman...Your interpretation of the story is that because one Scotsman is a criminal all Scotsmen are criminals."" No, your attempted reversal is incorrect. You, and one or two other people above, have been insisting that Bannon "does not count" as a right-wing populist (i.e. Scotsman) through various less than honest redefinitions. In this new argument you've moved on to a "#NotAllMen" sort of tactic, but it's still an intellectually dishonest tactic.
 * Further, you try to goalpost-move with "And while Bannon may be a leader of right-wing populism, he is not the leader". Assigning "one" leader is such a ridiculous and impossible standard that it would be impossible to use examples of speech by leaders virtually anywhere, unless they were on the order of prime ministers or presidents. Bannon is a leader, standing right next to another leader who just so happens to lead the "prototypical populist radical right-wing party" of France at the time the speech was given. To propose that this does not represent right-wing populism in that context is to move the goalposts somewhere past Mars orbit. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is a Scotsman in your analogy and which person am I saying is not a true Scotsman? TFD (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's go back to what TFD said a few comments back:
 * "And while the [National Front] is a right-wing populist party, you need a source that their view on this issue is the same as the other right-wing populist parties."
 * While this might have been the case when the Bannon quote was included in the "Definition" section (although I believe I could mount a convincing argument otherwise because of the supporting academic sources), it is most certainly not true now  when the quote is in a section about the National Front.The other problem is that there is no statement in that material of what the "National Front's view" is, so there is no need for connection with the views of other RWP parties. The material says that Bannon said X in front of an assembly of National Front members, and that the "pep talk" brought the members to their feet. It certainly does not say that the National Front's official view is that right-wing populism, or the National Front, are "xenophobic, racist and nativist".  In fact, I'm pretty sure that they would do everything possible to avoid saying that, because it's bad press and contradicts Le Pen's attempts to frame the party as part of the mainstream.  This is precisely why Bannon's remarks are so important to include in the article, because a right-wing leader actually said what scholars, analysts, historians, and pundits have been saying forever, about the essential nature of right-wing populism.However, according the view of some editors here, what those scholars, analysts, historians and pundits are saying can't be published in our article because their views are alarmist. Never mind that the actually said those things, and that they are reliable sources, because people might become alarmed about right-wing populism based on the considered opinions of subject experts, we can't include what those subject experts say.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)