Talk:Right-wing populism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GOP faction or whole?

Grayfell, in your edit summary here [1] you suggest it was improper to use the word "faction" when describing RWP and the GOP. However, that was the word you restored here [2]. The intent may be that the sources don't say RWP is a faction of the GOP but they also don't support that it is a majority or the only faction. Per the GOP article [3] RWP is one of five listed minority ideological factions with conservativism being the dominant ideology. It is improper for this article to suggest RWP is the majority ideology as your current edit suggests. Additionally, "faction" was the long term stable version only changed a few weeks ago [4]. Springee (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

For starters, conservatism and populism are not mutually exclusive. The article already indicates this. This talk page isn't the place to debate this point, so I will simply leave it at that. I also dispute the assumption that these categories are well defined enough for this level of precision to be meaningful. It would make life easier if this was the case, but it is unsupportable. This is similar to false precision. It's the political equivalent trading cards. This approach puts the entirety of political activity into discrete and marketable categories, despite a more complex reality. These categories are still useful for analysis, but only in context, and this list entry strips away all of that context, by design. The current and recent leadership of the party is populist, among other things, but this article isn't about those other things. This list entry indicates that sufficiently.

It looks like the lists in this article are already filled with this kind of false precision. The purpose of lists should be to summarize briefly. Regarding the GOP specifically, the body of this article already summarizes this, and it says nothing about factions, nor does it imply that populism excludes all other categories as if this was some intractable paradox. Of course not, so Wikipedia cannot side-step sources to imply that anyway. Readers can read the body text and go to the linked articles if they need more context, because these lists do not have room for that info.

As for the appeal to the status quo, while it is an ironically conservative approach, Wikipedia is a work in progress and if this is what it takes to fix this problem, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the ONUS is on you to show that this shouldn't be indicated as a faction vs as is being implied, the dominant ideology. I can't verify the book but the other sources do not support the view that it is the dominant ideology. I will restore the status quo text. Springee (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

So you have no response to what I have to say other than wikilawyering. Your interpretation of these sources is disputable at best, and WP:OR at worst. The sources imply that it has become the dominant ideology, and they do not describe it as a faction. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Since the two of you are now in an edit war... can I point out that the entire heading of the section is called "Current right-wing populist parties or parties with right-wing populist factions" - why do we need to add a little parenthetical saying (factions) on any items at all? Andrevan@ 23:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok if the section is clear that this is considered to be parties that have a RWP faction then I'm OK with that. The problem is if some have "faction" or similar and others don't it can imply those that don't are primarily RWP. This is likely why the long standing GOP entry noted faction. I'm OK with removing it from all listings. I don't understand why Greyfell is OK with a more specific version [5] but not the long term version that simply notes it as a "faction". Springee (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, "faction" should be restored. I find it difficult to believe that every single member of the Republican Party, is a right-winger. Can't link to the video, but comedian Richard Jeni had a very accurate description of right-wing/left-wing politics. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It might be helpful to find reliable sources that discuss the connection between the party and RWP. Mostly the sources are either opinions of journalists. Expert sources do not show there are RWP factions of the GOP. While sources such as Berlet wrote about RWP in the U.S., it was mostly if not entirely outside the GOP.

I think a major problem is that some people try to classify U.S. political strains using European categories. So what is in actuality a narrow political spectrum is presented as ranging from far right to far left.

TFD (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

See Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)#Trumpist_faction, it's currently the dominant faction of the party. Andrevan@ 02:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be sourced to other Wikipedia articles. You need a reliable source for this article that says RWP is a faction of the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As you know since I said the same thing on the other thread, I was not offering the article as a source, but it HAS references. There are several in that page I linked to. "In keeping with the party’s deep division between its dominant Trumpist faction and its more traditionalist party elites, the twin responses seem aimed at appealing on one hand to its corporate-friendly allies and on the other hand to its populist rightwing base. Both have an anti-immigrant element." [6] Andrevan@ 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's this:

• [7]: In recent years, the Republican Party in the United States has taken on the characteristics of right-wing populism, especially under President Donald Trump. Like most right-wing populist parties, the party under Trump is...

Honestly I think the list's problem is that it's a list and we can't provide full context there; whether (factions) or not is included doesn't make a big difference. The bigger problem to me is the last sentence of the lead - saying that Donald Trump's campaign included right-wing populist themes downplays the available sourcing to the point of misrepresenting it. I think it's fair to argue over whether Trump completely converted the Republican party to one based around right-wing populism or whether he's just one faction that happens to be in ascendance, but I think there's no question among the sources that Trump's politics, at least, are essentially defined by right-wing populism. Saying he just had right-wing populist "themes" isn't accurate. See also eg. [8][9]. That is more important to the article as a whole anyway, because Trump, specifically, is a key figure in recent right-wing populism, moreso than the Republican party as a whole. I'd focus on that sentence rather than obsessing over the entry on the list, since the text can provide proper focus and context about Trump's significance when discussing modern right-wing populism in general. --Aquillion (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There are several RS that Trumpism is ascendant and it's more than themes but a defining characteristic. This list doesn't need to specify which factions are factions and which are entire parties, it's splitting hairs. The Republican Party is clearly a party with a dominant right-wing populism according to many RS. We can balance that with sources that believe the Republican Party is NOT dominated by right-wing populism if such can be provided. Andrevan@ 12:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources you provided indeed use the terms "Donald Trump" and right-wing populism, but do not actually call him one. Your first source says, "the Republican Party in the United States has taken on the characteristics of right-wing populism, especially under President Donald Trump." Chip Berlet in Right-Wing Populism in America (2018), p, 2, writes, "We place the Christian Right, the Buchananites, and the militias in a long line of right-wing populist movements such as Father Coughlin's movement in the 1930s, the anti-Chinese crusade of the 1880s, and the Ku Klux Klan."[10] But there is nothing in the book that says Trump or the GOP are right-wing populist.

While I do not question that comparisons can be made between the Republican Party and RWP, that does not mean the party is RWP. OTOH, if you asked me for a source on whether the Democratic Party was a liberal party, I could bring out scores of textbooks on political ideology that groups them with other liberal parties.

As a matter of common sense, most people would say that the GOP is closer to the UK Conservative Party than it is to the British National Party.

TFD (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Please cite and substantiate your claims. Andrevan@ 14:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I just did, but you have never substantiated yours. You can present them at RSN, where I have begun a discussion. TFD (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I just did above. You have not substantiated your description that you claim is substantiated by scores of textbooks. Which claim of mine are you questioning? Is Trump a right-wing populist? [11] [12] [13] [14] Andrevan@ 16:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I came here from WP:RSN because the topic is not about what's an RS (it sort of asks whether journalists can be considered RS for evaluating general political ideology, which would be a valid question for the board, but does not directly do so). However, I take issue with User:Andrevan posting an array of long sources without quotes or page numbers that don't even support the point they appear to be arguing.

• First source (Merkel 2017): Trump’s simplistic, Republican-populist view; unite the GOP behind him; the GOP leadership will have to change the rules of the Senate (I thought Trump was the leader of the GOP?) is the closest they get to comparing the Republican party, Trump, and populism, in a way that clearly distinguishes them, which they do further in the article, in fact reinforcing that the mainstream Republican ideology is Conservative and was at least somewhat antithetical to Trump.
• Second source I'm just not bothering with the login and since it's not one paper I'd have to search through for the quote in question, but TEN!
• Third source: mentions Republican party one... in the title of a citation.
• Fourth source: Mentions the Republican party twice ... to describe Trump's opponents.

I spent 10 minutes doing this because I have no doubt that this is the only time sources have been carelessly presented in this discussion, as they have in so many countless other discussions on WP. For my part I personally find such kinds of citations, when presented in conversation with me, disrespectful. I hope the article has higher standards for verifiability. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Withdrawn with apologies per below (I'm in a bad mood from some previous discussions). It was not my assessment based on the previous comments, but on review I see that it is likely that you are indeed trying to support the connection between Trump and RWP, for which I did not evaluate the sources but seemed to be the jist of most of them. However, from my perspective, based on his previous comment and the one at RSN, I think that TFD is having the same inaccurate impression of your argument that I did. I hope you can clear that up. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to break down the sources. I was not being disrespectful, I don't agree with your read or your discounting. Your idea that "mainstream Republican ideology is Conservative" needs references. I was offering these sources to support Trump being viewed by mainstream sources as a right-wing populist. There are other sources to support the claim that "Trump is the leader of the party," but these go specifically toward him being a populist. Merkel 2017: In President Trump’s simplistic, Republican-populist view of the world, p. 21[15]

p. 22 Trump’s plans for economic policymaking are squarely in accord with the national-protectionist programs of most right-wing populist parties(ibid)

Schroeder 2018 p. 60 compares four right-wing populist movements: Donald Trump in America[16]

Lacatus/Meibower p.6 In the USA, the rise in support for right-wing populism, and Trump’s variant in particular [17]

McDonnell/Ondelli 2020: really the whole article is about the language of right-wing populists including Trump [18]

Fiorino 2022: Right there in the abstract: In recent years, the Republican Party in the United States has taken on the characteristics of right-wing populism, especially under President Donald Trump. Like most right-wing populist parties, the party under Trump is hostile to climate mitigation [19]

Introduction - Donald Trump’s Populism What Are the Prospects for US Democracy? it's a book published by Cambridge in 2019 [20]

The Rhetoric of Donald Trump - Nationalist Populism and American Democracy - Robert C. Rowland The Rhetoric of Donald Trump identifies and analyzes the nationalist and populist themes that dominate the rhetoric of President Trump and links those themes to a persona that has evolved from celebrity outsider to presidential strongman. In the process Robert C. Rowland explains how the nationalist populism and strongman persona in turn demands a vernacular rhetorical style... [21]

Donald Trump and American Populism Edinburgh University Press Populist disrupter-in-chief 2020 On November 8, 2016 Republican standard-bearer Donald J. Trump shook the American political landscape to its foundations.... The roots of Trump’s populism [22] [23]

Yes, Trump is a populist. But what does that mean?Review of "What Is Populism" by Jan-Werner Müller and "The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics" by John B. Judis By Carlos Lozada[24]

The New Authoritarianism: Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts .. populism represents, contends Babones, an imperfect but reinvigorating political flood that has the potential to sweep away decades of institutional detritus and rejuvenate democracy across the West.[25]

In terms of party leadership, I can provide sources for this if you don't believe me, it is generally accepted both that the president of a party is considered its leader (like Joe Biden) and that party leadership contains other individuals besides the President (like Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer or Speaker Nancy Pelosi). Those leaders are not always all from the same faction, or ideology, or in lockstep on all issues. I believe we also could find sources to support the claim that Trump was the leader of the Republican party and its most popular figure from 2016-2020 at least. Andrevan@ 16:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

SamuelRiv The Four Deuces are you disputing that Trump is the leader of the Republican party or that the Trumpist faction was the most powerful faction and the majority of the party for at least 2016-present, or that the Trumpist faction exists at all? I've clearly shown that Trump is a right-wing populist. It's also the case that Trump was the leader of the party at least 2016-2020, do we agree on that or should I spelunk for that fact? Andrevan@ 16:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Your syllogism proving that there is an RWP faction of the GOP is synthesis and therefore cannot be used to support anything in the article. You need a source for what you think the article should say. It's not that I do not necessarily disagree with your analysis of Trump, but it's a waste of time arguing over something irrelevant to article content. TFD (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not synthesizing or looking for synthesis to be in the article, everything I just wrote can be substantiated by sources, but if we don't really disagree, can we focus on what we are actually disputing? I actually haven't proposed any text for this article or edited it. There's a bit of a dispute amongst editors as to whether the Republican Party should be listed with the parenthetical (faction) or not. I have not weighed in on that or edited the article, I proposed that we delete the parenthetical from every entry since it's in the header. I believe it is supportable that there is a faction of the Republican Party known as the ultra-MAGA or Trumpists or right-wing populist faction. Andrevan@ 17:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, besides being synthesis, by that logic, a herd consisting of 51 cats and 49 dogs could be described as a "herd of 100 cats" North8000 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No, your logic is not analogous to anything I've proposed or suggested or claimed. Trump was leader of the party - do you dispute that fact? Andrevan@ 17:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Setting that debatable question aside, so if the leader of that pack is a cat, then it can be described as a herd of 100 cats? North8000 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No, but if the leader of the pack is a black cat and that cat has at least 3-4 black cat friends, you could describe a faction of the group of mammals as the black cat faction. Andrevan@ 17:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, the lead says, "Although extreme right-wing movements in the United States (where they are normally referred to as the "radical right") are usually characterized as a separate entity, some writers consider them to be a part of a broader, right-wing populist phenomenon." You need some sort of segue from that claim to the claim that one of America's two major parties is mostly or entirely RWP. TFD (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't proposed adding that claim, you're putting words in my mouth. Andrevan@ 17:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You put the words back in your own mouth in your next comment: "there is clearly a supportable claim that there exists a RWP faction." [18:00, 19 July 2022]

You're moving the goalpost. The status quo of the article already reflects the existence of a RWP faction. I did not claim, "America's two major parties is mostly or entirely RWP," but that the faction was the most powerful due to its leader Trump being from that faction. Andrevan@ 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In reply to Andrevan, I sincerely thought you had been trying to link RWP and GOP ideology in general, which I am skeptical of, but that wasn't the issue as much as that the sources did not support what I thought-you-were-claiming-but-turns-out-your-weren't. Regarding the questions you ask on this indent, I'd generally not dispute those characterizations, but of course they still need RS, which I'm sure have been or will be posted; but as I was only here to respond to sources posted at RSN, I'll just leave. Good luck. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, just to be clear I am currently attempting to refute the statement made by TFD earlier, before he posted to RS/N: "Expert sources do not show there are RWP factions of the GOP. While sources such as Berlet wrote about RWP in the U.S., it was mostly if not entirely outside the GOP." Strongly disagree, there is clearly a supportable claim that there exists a RWP faction. Andrevan@ 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it the no true Scotsman fallacy? Or is it in fact a bunch of 5th-generation "two-thirds-Scotch-Irish" Americans rooting for Scotland while watching the World Cup at a sports bar? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's actually the reverse. Idi Amin wore a kilt and declared himself the King of Scotland. But that did not make him a true Scotsman, no matter how hard he tried, because he was not from Scotland. As the old saying goes, there are only two types of people in the world: Scots and people who want to be Scots. In the same sense, according to experts, Americans could not be right-wing populists because they were outside most European political traditions. The reasoning was that the Tea Party, Trump, etc., drew on American rather than European antecedents. TFD (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell if the reference to European is part of this metaphor or you're using it to refer to the political spectrum as I believe you did earlier. Andrevan@ 21:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Question: If the list in question were changed from "is/has factions" in wiki-voice to something indicating an attributed voice/claim, would that sidestep much of the issue here? I think a legitimate concern is how many sources are enough to establish what is often a source's opinion/subjective assessment that an organization is vs just has aspects of etc. For example, to say the GOP "is a WRP" party we would need extremely strong sourcing and sourcing that shows that other competing/better descriptions aren't used etc. However, if we move to an attributed claim or something similar then the threshold is lower and debates about inclusion/exclusion are bypassed. Springee (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that "has factions" needs to be attributed. It's clearly established by the sources that the GOP at least has a faction of right-wing populist Trumpists. I would accept that there might be a split between sources who claim that Trumpism is an abberation or somehow outside of the GOP, and those who consider Trumpism a logical continuation of, and a continuance with, Republican party policy going back many years. We don't really need to get into that here. We just need to get out the basic facts, in Wiki voice because they are majority views of the source record as it exists today, that the Republican Party deserves to be linked on this list because of the Trump populism. Andrevan@ 21:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I would be concerned with fixating on recent sources. Are the authors of the older sources in agreement or is it just that the people who feel this is a RWP thing the ones who have decided to publish recently? I do think the sources in this article would need to be changed as at least the ones I can access suggest "similar to" vs actually a faction. To use the black cat example, if we have 5 of 100 cats that are black we have a black cat faction. However, if we have 40 very dark but not quite black cats we have a faction that is similar to but not actually a black cat faction. Springee (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Politics doesn't have bright lines like that. This is just me talking and not a source talking, but just because someone votes with a faction most of the time, some of the time, or not at all, doesn't mean either the faction doesn't exist or that the person is not a member. E.g. Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Progressive Democrats, as does his colleague Patrick Leahy, as does Ed Markey. I'm sure you could find lots of places where they voted the same way, and voted differently. You still wouldn't try to claim that there is no such thing as a progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There are plenty of sources that have described Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and various others as members of a Trumpist wing, faction, group, etc, such as it exists. That is the important thing - not my view on how dark the cat is or if it is a truly black cat, or just a gray cat that occasionally plays with the tabby cats and the brown cats. Andrevan@ 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Not a good comparison, because we are talking about classifying parties and factions, rather than individuals. And yes, there are bright lines. The Liberal Party (UK) for example was classified as a liberal party, based on the circumstances of its creation, its name, its ethos, how it is perceived by the public, its constitution and platforms, its symbols and its international affiliation. The same with the British Communist Party. Klaus von Beyme, whom I mentioned at RSN, was able to classify most European parties into nine categories: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative, extreme right (which includes RWP), agrarian and nationalist. Since then, left parties have emerged as a new category. There's very little dispute about his original classifications. TFD (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with this reductionist view that there is a single right way of classifying the many complex distinctions between descriptors such as these, and we cannot impose this view on the articles without properly incorporating the way material is treated in a broad cross section of other material. You're offering a very specific interpretation by a single scholar - there isn't one right system. An academic consensus has to span a large body of source material and how things are commonly and conventionally used. If your pal Klaus was widely accepted as the father of the form of analysis academics all used, maybe we could use his thinking to pattern the articles, but I do not believe that is hte case. I am not familiar with the two British parties you mentioned. However, at least in the United States, that is not how it works. Parties have wings. There's a progressive wing and a moderate/centrist wing of the Democrats, and there's a Trumpist wing and a moderate/centrist wing of the Republicans. You can slice it further as our articles and some sources have done, but there are at least those factions. They aren't exact, there can be overlaps or folks who occasionally do things counter to their factional bearing, or some individuals are difficult to classify or buck the trend. Similarly, in other countries, you have coalitions like the Joint List in Israel. Just take a look at the table here 2022 Israeli legislative election#Current composition. There are many parties that either cater to a specific demographic or a specific issue, there are also larger big tent parties. The same thing in history of U.S. politics from the Know-Nothing Party to the Free Soil Party to the Whig Party. Also it's just not the case that because there is "very little dispute" about his classification system, we have to adopt that system, and introduce and overreliance on a single academic. Andrevan@ 01:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus view is that all major U.S. parties came under the umbrella of liberalism, which makes the U.S. an outlier. That's why there is confusion about how to classify the different strands of liberalism each represented. Generally accepted party typologies are unable to sub-classify them just as they have trouble sub-classifying other political types.

I am bemused that you are not familiar with the Liberal Party (UK) or have sufficient knowledge of the Communist Party of Great Britain to know that it was a communist party. You should read up on political parties and ideologies before attempting to edit articles about them.

It would be helpful if you provided passages from the sources you provide. Giving us for example a link to "Introduction - Donald Trump’s Populism" isn't helpful. None of the authors of the book call Trump a right-wing populist. Why did you cite it?

TFD (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. You need to substantiate the idea that all U.S. parties are considered "liberalism," it sounds like a fringe view, which should be accorded very little weight in US political scholarship if any. And why would a German professor be a recognized expert on US politics? In fact, the consensus modern view on US politics is the crisis of illiberalism in the Republican Party including the premeditated rolling coup attempt and the attack on jurisprudence and the regulatory power of the state. There are different meanings for liberalism in the US including classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, used to mean progressivism etc., outside of the scope of this discussion, but none describe the GOP. I also don't believe it is common knowledge for US political knowledge or contemporary global politics to know about the Liberal Party (UK) or the Communist Party of Great Britain, AFAIK both are defunct and not a factor in contemporary British politics. I know about the Labor Party (UK), the Liberal Democrats (UK), the Conservative Party (UK), UKIP, Sinn Fein, Democratic Unionist Party, Scottish National Party and I could probably try to think of another one or two. Regardless, you do not need to be an expert to edit Wikipedia, nor have I claimed British politics as my area of expertise. As far as the citation you are asking for, here is the abstract, which doesn't explicitly use the term right-wing but does say illiberal: "The victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 election left specialists of American politics perplexed and concerned about the future of US democracy. Because no populist leader had occupied the White House in 150 years, there were many questions about what to expect. Marshalling the long-standing expertise of leading specialists of populism elsewhere in the world, this book provides the first systematic, comparative analysis of the prospects for US democracy under Trump, considering the two regions - Europe and Latin America - that have had the most ample recent experiences with populist chief executives. Chapters analyze the conditions under which populism slides into illiberal or authoritarian rule and in so doing derive well-grounded insights and scenarios for the US case, as well as a more general cross-national framework. The book makes an original argument about the likely resilience of US democracy and its institutions" Andrevan@ 02:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

See for example, Political Ideology Today, p. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been."[26] Certainly there are debates within U.S. politics, but they all take place within the shared liberal assumptions. TFD (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Should this sentence, "Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, noted for its anti-establishment, anti-immigration, and anti-free trade rhetoric, was characterized as right-wing populist," say pro-free trade rhetoric instead of anti-? Julyattitude (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Who says that Trump was a supporter of free trade? His economic policy focused on protectionism. He restricted imports from several countries in an effort to reduce the trade deficit. Dimadick (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, he is definitively anti-free trade, and famously stated that trade wars were good, and easy to win against China. He also killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership Andre🚐 22:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Right and left wing populist definition

Both the right wing and the left-wing populist page employ the same definition verbatim. Making the definition meaningless in any rational way.

“ Its rhetoric employs anti-elitist sentiments, opposition to the Establishment, and speaking to or for the "common people" 2600:1700:610:65E0:3454:D755:7678:9027 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know how that makes it “meaningless” when one is right wing and the other is left. Poorly written and lazy, maybe, but not incomprehensible or nonsensical. Dronebogus (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is with the other article. The author of the source was arguing that left-wing populism was theoretically possible, although he provided no examples.(p. 123)[27] Whether or not left-wing populism exists in reality, or is even a coherent concept, is debatable. The author wasn't trying to prove that left-wing populism existed, but that populism wasn't necessarily right-wing. TFD (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If not left-wing populism, how else would you describe the likes of Syriza, the Five Star Movement, and Podemos? Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Syriza and Podemos are normally described as left parties. Luke March in his original article about this type of party, "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe" (2008) called them "far left" parties because they were to the left of social democratic parties, but he and other experts now merely call them left parties. Note that Syriza is listed in his article, but PODEMOS had not yet been founded. They are basically broad tent coalitions of former Communists, Trotskyists and left-wing members of social democratic parties. Their analysis tends therefore to be socialist, rather than populist, although they don't have a unifying ideology.

The Five Star Movement isn't particularly left-wing. On the political spectrum it appears to stand between Left and Right.

TFD (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Image caption

"Former presidents Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil) and Donald Trump (United States) were leading figures of right-wing populism."

Were or are? Not sure about Bolsonaro, but Donald Trump is still very prominent in the Republican party. Bremps! 20:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, both are still living figures. I think it should be “are” not were. Friedbyrd (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing nationalism is not Right-wing populism

Equating right-wing nationalism with right-wing populism is an overly American and European-centric view. Nippon Kaigi are also identified as "right-wing nationalists" or even "far-rights". But these are NEVER "populists". Many scholars analyze that these are rather elitists, and that Japan's traditional ultra-nationalism is not fascism because it is not related to populism. Japan is the third-largest advanced country in the world's economic power, and Japan's right-wing nationalism is different from Western right-wing nationalism. Rather, as pointed out in Vox (website), Japan's mainstream right-wing nationalism is not related to populism, unlike Western right-wing nationalism. #

Not only Japan, but Myanmar's military-centered right-wing nationalist regime has no connection with populism. Rather, liberals/liberal-nationalists such as Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy, who have nothing to do with the right-wing, are related to populism. The nationalism of many dictatorships in Asia and Africa is often unexpectedly not based on the support of the majority of people.

I believe that Right-wing nationalism articles and Right-wing populism articles should exist individually. It should be applied in the same way as a Left-wing nationalism articles and Left-wing populism article. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, not all right-wing populism is based on nationalism in a narrow sense. Right-wing populism based on religious fundamentalism shows a different form than nationalist right-wing populism. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted as you need a consensus for theis change. Many editors understand those sources as being supportive of the statement, that you do not is not necessarily proof that they are not supportive. Please get a consensus of editors to agree with you befire you restore your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I'll at least add a footnote. If right-wing nationalism and right-wing populism are synonymous, Shinzo Abe will also become a right-wing populist. I think Abe is absolutely a right-wing nationalist, but never a right-wing populist. Currently, many Wikipedia articles often distort what applies only to the European and American worlds as if it were a universal global phenomenon. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Japanese Prime Minister(s)

It seems that in the Japanese section, when speaking about one PM or other governmental leader, they use their job titles in plural to speak about one person. I am wondering if this is a grammar error or if I am mistaken on this. 208.122.76.120 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the text because the sources do not call them right-wing populists. TFD (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

But sources appear to describe Shinzo Abe as a right-wing nationalist. It should be clear whether right-wing populism and right-wing nationalism mean the same or different things. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

They are different things, although they can overlap. TFD (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's right, so we need to separate right-wing nationalism and right-wing populist articles. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

18 May IP edits

An IP editor added content to the article lead and definitions sections here [28] (two edits). I reverted for the following reasons. First, the material added to the lead is not in the body and it is not clear such content should be in the lead. Second, this may be COI material added not because it is DUE, rather because it is content by Jayson Harsin. See my COIN discussion here [29]. With a COI editor it's not clear if this content is a DUE view on the subject or simply one that is being pushed to increase visibility of the author's work. It's not at all clear this content is DUE in the body as it seems rather narrow in scope. It is not DUE in the lead as it is meant to be a summary of the body. Per BRD this material should not be restored until it has been discussed and consensus to add has been reached. Since Beyond My Ken has already restored this material without addressing my original concerns I've started this discussion. I will remove the content from the lead but leave the content added to the body for now. Springee (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Recapping

• it's not in the body and so should not be in the lead
• It's too detailed to be in the lead
• Sounds more like expounding / essay-like rather than enclyclopedic
• The wiki editor is making uncourced claims /praise about the cited writer
• Looks like possible reference spamming

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Also, both sources are about gender and rw populism. To show its significance to the topic, it is preferable to use sources about rw populism in general written by experts in rw populism. It would be helpful too to have a page number for the second source used. TFD (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Moved to body

I've moved the material to the body of the article. Discussion should therefore continue without consideration that it's not suited for the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that addresses the COI parts but it at least better than restoring it to the lead. Is Harsin's content DUE in the article? My concern is almost all reference to his work on Wikipedia appear to be either music/movie reviews or material added by what appear to be COI IP editors. Looking at TFD's comment, do sources about right wing populism normally discuss this or is this something that Harsin is pushing but others haven't really noted? Springee (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As an example of a problematic sentence, "Some scholars argue that right-wing populism's association with conspiracy, rumor and falsehood may be more common in the digital era thanks to widely accessible means of content production and diffusion." This sentence entirely reference's a Harsin source. It suggests that a number of scholars are saying this but presents only Harsin (possibly the editor adding the content). Almost none of this content seems to be specifically immigration related. It also seems to be self promoting another Harsin related topic, post-truth politics. Harsin is named (likely COI adds) five times in the article body. See edits here [30],[31],[32]. This looks like a connection made not because it's DUE but because a COI editor wants it.

Finally, Beyond My Ken, please be more careful. You copied a stable sentence from the lead into your new section (the one about Trump winning the 2016 election). Springee (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Absent some other justification for this content in the body I will remove it again. I would be interested in North8000 and TFD's take since it's not clear if they were referring to the whole addition or just the part in the lead. Springee (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant to the subject, and it is sourced. What more justification do you need, or is it simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The COI issue is now irrelevant, since the edit has now been taken up by another editor (me). Please make your argument that the content violates WP:DUE. I see only your assertion that it is not DUE because of the supposed COI, which is no longer relevant, and no further argumentation from you in support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Your addition is still a mess as you created a section called immigration even though the content largely isn't. It was clearly done with limited editing as you copied an unrelated Trump sentence from the lead. COI does still matter as there is a question of any of this is DUE. The other editors seemed to also question the content. @North8000 and The Four Deuces: Springee (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you call it "a mess". Is there a problem with the source? Surely you aren't accusing BMK of being a SP. I believe we can find some consensus for inclusion of RS. Perhaps an inline attribution and a more specific subsection title. DN (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, while RS is a necessary criterion for inclusion, it is not a sufficient requirement. TFD (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No one said it was the sole criteria, so that point is moot and if you are concerned about WP:BALANCE, how many additional sources would you like to add to make sure it is WP:NPOV? DN (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering that Google scholar alone shows over 30,000 articles that mention right-wing populism, you'd need a lot of additional sources to show that a "minor aspect" of the topic but was a major aspect in the body of the literature.

But that's not how a reasonable editor would determine weight. Instead they would either consult an expert who explained the weight in the literature of various aspects of the topic, or per WP:TERTIARY, consider the weight that tertiary sources provide.

This isn't rocket science. We are supposed to produce an article that looks like what one would find in a textbook, not one that reflects our personal interests. The way to do that is to identify reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say rather than cherry pick sources about various aspects of the topic written by people who are not experts in the field, although they may be experts in other areas. TFD (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

DN, have you really looked at this addition [33]? It's in a section titled "Immigration" but the first sentence says, "While immigration is a common theme at the center of many national right-wing populist movements, the theme often crystallizes around cultural issues, such as religion, gender roles, and sexuality, as is the case with the transnational anti-gender theory movements." Basically it starts by saying immigration isn't the only thing. Basically the topic of the paragraph isn't immigration despite the title of the section.

The next sentence might be DUE somewhere in this article though I haven't reviewed the sources to verify they really support the claim, "A body of scholarship has also found populist movements to employ or be based around conspiracy theories, rumors, and falsehoods.".

The next two sentences are sourced solely to Harsin and appear to be added by an IP stuffing Harsin citations into articles (hence COI concerns). " Some scholars argue that right-wing populism's association with conspiracy, rumor and falsehood may be more common in the digital era thanks to widely accessible means of content production and diffusion. These media and communication developments in the context of specific historical shifts in immigration and cultural politics have led to the association of right-wing populism with post-truth politics." Post-truth politics is referenced to another article stuffed with Harsin references by SPA IP editors. Also note that "some scholars argue" references only Harsin. It any of this really good content or just something someone is stuffing into this article? It's also content that might be better used as a supporting reference for how right wing populism is spread. It certainly doesn't support the section title "Immigration".

The final sentence is "American businessman and media personality Donald Trump won the 2016 United States presidential election after running on a platform that included right-wing populist themes.". Oddly, it looks identical to the last sentence of the article lead. That suggests it was inadvertently copied when this section was created by trying copy paste content that was found to be UNDUE in the lead.

So yeah, the addition was a complete mess. It was randomly placed in the article body and given a section heading that has nothing to do with the content. It presumes content added by a likely COI IP editor was actually DUE and copied an unrelated sentence from the article lead in the process. Springee (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Being relevant to a topic and being sourced are not the sole criteria for inclusion. Another necessary criterion is weight, specifically "balancing aspects."

When a freshman is asked in a Polisci 101 exaam, for five points, to explain rw populism, the examiner will have a list of facts and score the student for each one identified. They won't give them marks for facts not on the list.

Similarly, when a professor gives a lecture or writes a textbook, there will be an agreed set of facts.

When Wikipedia articles place emphasis on aspects of a topic generally ignored in the literature, it means that they will differ from mainstream writing. That's called POV, which policy requires us to avoid. TFD (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think that there's some important stuff there that belongs in the body (and probably eventually the lead in some form, although we should figure out what goes in the body first); the article doesn't really say enough about some key elements of right-wing populism. But the current wording is a summary that doesn't really summarize to "immigration", so we should fiddle with it a bit, expanding some parts and moving other parts around. There's really several things in it:

• While immigration is a common theme at the center of many national right-wing populist movements, the theme often crystallizes around cultural issues, such as religion, gender roles, and sexuality, as is the case with the transnational anti-gender theory movements. This is a summary sentence that identifies key issues at the center of many right-wing populist movements according the sources. It's an important thing to have; some of these things are already mentioned, but often insufficiently in the article as it is, or only in passing.
• A body of scholarship has also found populist movements to employ or be based around conspiracy theories, rumors, and falsehoods. Some scholars argue that right-wing populism's association with conspiracy, rumor and falsehood may be more common in the digital era thanks to widely accessible means of content production and diffusion. This is an important point and well-cited; it'd be easy to find additional sources if people really don't accept that there's extensive scholarship connecting right-wing populism to conspiratorial thinking, but this part is really the most obvious omission that this section adds. The rest is a more specific elaboration on this that could go into a paragraph dedicated to this aspect.

But the "immigration" header is weird, since this paragraph as it is now is mostly about aspects other than immigration. --Aquillion (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the "body of scholarship" references a single author, Harsin. It's also important to note that the references to Harsin appear to be added by IP editors located in France (Harsin is in France) and each time they are active their primary purpose seems to be to add Harsin references etc. If we are going to say "a body of scholarship" then that needs to be shown. Also, as TFD notes, if this is a significant part of the larger topic then sources about RWP should mention it rather than sources about post-truth politics etc. Agree that this isn't "immigration". Springee (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, your only objections are to the parts cited to Harsin (and your only objection is that it cites only Harsin), not to the other parts? In other words, the part about conspiratorial thinking? There are other things in the edit in question as well, cited to a variety of other editors, which I do think we need to cover in depth. For how to cover the importance of conspiratorial thinking to the populist right, I'll list some possible sources below. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In general, yes. I think the Harsin content should be removed as it was COI added and appears that perhaps all additions of Harsin in Wikipedia were the same. I don't see an issue with adding the material cited to other authors assuming it is shown to be due as TFD outlined above. That is we have articles about the topic as a whole that say this is a significant sub-part of the topic. Conversely, if it's a minor but non-essential aspect they we should make that clear. The other issue being that they are properly integrated. I think we all agree that the recent addition wasn't an example of proper integration. Your list below appears to have some good sources but I would try to find some pre-Trump era sources. It's one thing to say this was something associated with Trump's brand of RWP but quite another to say it is inherent in RWP. It also should be clear where this is populism in general or specific RWP. Springee (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

While the "it's a mess" were not my words. I listed 5 different problems with it. Two were about it being the the lead and 3 were about it being (anywhere) in the article. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, other possible sources for a paragraph or subsection on conspiratorial thinking in the populist right (this is just a first pass, we'd have to go over them and then decide what to write in detail based on what they say). One that leaps out is Priester (2012) identifies conspiracy theories as one of six defining features of right-wing populism. Wodak (2015) shares this position, while Stoica (2017) and Vassiliou (2017) even argue that there can be no populism without conspiracy theories. But other sources worth going over might include: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquillion (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

References

I would rather see a source about right-wing populism that says conspiracism is an essential part than an article about conspiracism that says that.Otherwise, it's difficult to establish the weight to assign different aspects. TFD (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Priester (cited in the first source) is such a source, although it is not available in English so I avoided citing it directly for simplicity. Also keep in mind that the amount of text we're discussing at this point is not particularly overwhelming - perhaps a few sentences in the body, not in the lead. I could understand your objection about assigning weight to different aspects if we were talking about a massive section devoted to conspiracy theories, or still taking about a mention in the lead, but I don't think you can reasonably use that argument for complete exclusion; it's an aspect of right-wing populism that has enough discussion in reliable sources for at least a brief mention. --Aquillion (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"there can be no populism without conspiracy theories." Big surprise there. Most variations of populism strive to stop perceived abuse by elites, and conspiracy theorists tend to obsess about the perceived corruption of the elites. They share a common target. Dimadick (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If we changed the mislabeling as "immigration" to an actual description which would be "wide-ranging-content-free bash" the situation would become clearer. When the operative sentence starts with something like "Some ______ argue that..." I go on yellow alert for that and in this case was to say that it's associated with "post truth politics". North8000 (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, this discussion has died down. The Immigration section still exists. Does anyone feel there is consensus to leave the content in the article as is? If editors think some of the sources are good, other than the spammed author, I don't see anything wrong with incorporating their claims elsewhere in the article (assuming they are good sources, due etc). Springee (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

My preference would be to rewrite it with the sources I identified above, especially Bergmann and Priester. I think it's a key point that we can cite to other places if the only objection is to the source. --Aquillion (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you take that on? Assuming the sources are strong I don't see an issue with saying in effect, 'some academics have said X is part of RWP'. I would repeat TFD's concern that we should have sources about RWP that say this is part of it vs sources about misinformation who are trying to make the case that WRP and misinformation go hand in hand. Certainly there would be a difference between a claim that misinformation is sometimes part of vs it's inherently a part of. Springee (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Springee, please be more patient, thank you. Changing the title to something more accurate would be more appropriate than just removing cited content entirely. DN (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to keep the edit in question. The ONUS to fix it is on those who think the content is DUE. So far no one has stepped up. Given no action for over a week, removal is perfectly reasonable. Contrary to BNK's edit summary, there is no consensus to keep this. Springee (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not see consensus for it's removal, either, despite your edit summary. DN (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Please review NOCON. This is a new, contested edit. Consensus is needed to keep, not the other way around. Springee (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It was originally contested as COI, which was resolved, now the discussion is ongoing. I am unfamiliar with the rule that says editors only have a week to address changes or content needs to be removed. Waiting for other editors to chime in is part of the process. Making false statements in edit summaries is not. DN (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The concerns went and still go beyond COI. Springee (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Still has the last three of the five problems that I listed. Basically an essay that goes off on a tangent and gives the essayist's viewpoint on that tangent. My advice is to leave it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's see...

*Sounds more like expounding / essay-like rather than enclyclopedic

*The wiki editor is making uncourced claims /praise about the cited writer

*Looks like possible reference spamming

I believe Aquillion just mentioned they have some alternative sources/writers/suggestions currently on the table to address these possible concerns, although I don't see much merit in them myself, since the COI/IP argument no longer stands. Those suggestions were made 12:29, 30 May 2023 in case anyone thinks that has any relevance at all. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing the subtopic name isn't addressing the issue. If you want to actually fix the text and integrate it into the rest of the article with the additional sources Aquillion suggested that may be a fix. What you did comes across as an attempt to avoid removing the obvious mess that is that section. You said BRD in your edit summary. Do you understand that if we did that then the IP's bold addition would be reverted then we would be discussing it here. Instead we have Beyond My Ken restoring the content without addressing issues and while claiming consensus to include exists even though it doesn't. ONUS to fix the text and get consensus is on those who want to add it. Springee (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I recall the title being part or one of the original complaints. I'm happy to self-revert if you prefer the older version. You say it's a mess, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm happy to start integrating the sources Aquillion suggested, and I'm perfectly willing to take suggestions. Again, the original issue you brought up was COI, which was resolved, am I wrong? I'm happy to work with you on how to integrate this, there's no contention from me on that. DN (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So out of the 6 citations Aquillion provided, which are best, and where should they go/replace etc? DN (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. I appreciate that you are trying to fix this vs just edit war in the current text. I haven't read through Aquillion's suggested sources. I would start with TFD's suggestion and find which might be the broader, higher level sources and start there. I would suggest we remove the Harsin sources as self promotional and presented in a way that suggests his views are some sort of group of scholars vs just himself. If others say the same thing we could cite them instead. I think just integrating this into the current methods section (not as a sub-section) with 1-2 sentences would be fine (assuming the sources are good and one is a higher level source etc... basically the concerns previously expressed). Springee (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that sounds fairly reasonable. If Harsin's views aren't consistent with the mainstream consensus, there should be an attribution at the very least and not presented as "mainstream consensus". I have yet to fully examine everything myself, but I will make sure to do so. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Aquillion, you wrote, "Priester (cited in ["Conspiracy theory and populism"]) is such a source, although it is not available in English so I avoided citing it directly for simplicity." Do you not see the weight issue? Despite rw populism being a widely covered phenomenon and despite there being prominent experts who are routinely cited, such as Hans-Georg Betz, Cas Mudde and Pippa Norris and in the U.S. Chip Berlet, you ask us to give more weight to a 2012 paper that has received little attention.

Policy directs us to summarize reliable sources, not to personally determine what is significant and search for sources.

TFD (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Since no actions have been taken on this I've done some edits. I've remove any claims solely sourced to Harsin as spam/COI. I removed the sentence that mentioned Trump as it was a copy paste from the article lead when it was agreed that this content wasn't due for the lead. Since that left a single sentence with three citations I merged that into the paragraph above. Springee (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of sources

I looked at Aquillion's first source and tried to pull some explicit context that specifically mentions RWP.

• (page 333 bottom half) Priester (2012) identifies conspiracy theories as one of six defining features of right-wing populism. Wodak (2015) shares this position, while Stoica (2017) and Vassiliou (2017) even argue that there can be no populism without conspiracy theories. From the perspective of conspiracy theory studies, the relationship has been most thoroughly theorised by Fenster, who argues that all contemporary conspiracy theories are populist, but that not all populist movements rely on conspiracy theories.
• (page 338 top) While Trump’s actions as president for example, tax cuts from which the rich and large companies benefit disproportionately are rarely populist, he has continued to appeal rhetorically to the people. Especially on Twitter, which Trump uses very strategically to present himself as their unwavering advocate (Butter 2019), he constantly reinforces ‘the concept of a homogeneous people and a homeland threatened by the dangerous other’ (Kreis 2017: 607). As it is quite typical of right-wing populism, this ‘other’ comprises two groups: The corrupt elite inside the country and undeserving outsiders, that is, Democrats and liberals in general, on the one hand, and visitors from certain Muslim countries and (undocumented) immigrants from Mexico, on the other. While Trump focused on the external threat throughout 2017, over the course of 2018 he increasingly targeted Democrats because of their support for the Mueller investigation, the upcoming midterm elections and their allegedly obstructive role in the controversial confirmation process of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
• (page 340 Conclusion) Our contention that conspiracy theories are a non-necessary element of populist discourses, often cynically articulated by a movement’s leaders but genuinely believed by a larger or smaller number of ordinary members raises more questions than it answers: Is it possible to predict in which situations conspiracy theories are important for a specific populist movement? Within such movements, who is particularly receptive to conspiracy theories? Are conspiracy theories more frequently found in right-wing populism than in the left-wing variant, as some scholars have suggested (Priester 2012; Wodak 2015), or are they as prominent on the left as on the right, as others have argued (Thalmann 2019; Uscinski 2019)? To answer these and a plethora of related questions more research and, importantly, a shift in focus is needed.

DN (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I also found something that claims to be peer reviewed and in regard to "RWP in the digital era", so to speak..."Right-wing populism, social media and echo chambers in Western democracies"...DN (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, per Balancing aspects, you first need to establish the significance of these observations to the topic, which you can only do by using overviews of the topic. Using a different weight for information would make the article POV. Note that none of the authors are experts on right-wing populism and their articles were not published in books or journals about politics, sociology or right-wing populism.

RS is never a sufficient reason for inclusion. I could for example find a book about American birds and decide to add a few paragraphs about wild turkeys to the article about the U.S. I wouldn't do that not because I didn't have an rs, but because it is not a subject given a lot of weight in brief articles about the U.S. TFD (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent Revert

[34] It seems neither Beyond My Ken or Aquillion have participated on the article or joined in the discussion here much, regarding the changes proposed. Not that they should feel compelled to do so, but I would say that the changes Springee made don't seem that unreasonable, as there has seemingly not been much effort to find consensus in the last month. After looking at the sources, I also don't see much to warrant it's own section, as the use of social media platforms in the digital era to spread conspiracy theories etc is not unique to RWP. DN (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

An editor without a strong POV about the subject should make the changes. Springee does not qualify as that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless they are banned from editing on this topic, I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you should take it to their talk page? DN (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

BMK, do you realize you restored the remnant Trump sentence that you copy pasted from the lead to this section. It's one thing to say you disagree about removing the sentences that solely cited Harsin. It's quite another to defend restoring a totally non-sequiter sentence about Trump. Springee (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad that after a month and several reverts you at least noted that error in both your original addition to the body and your repeated restorations. Note that doesn't address the other issues and there is still no consensus to keep the material cited to Harsin. Per NOCON the material should be left out until it has consensus to include. Thus it is up to you to show that consensus exists. Thus far you have not. Springee (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus here to include the material, but to be certain, I am starting an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Your read is wrong. There isn't consensus any more than there was consensus when you insisted on including a quote from Steve Bannon [35] Springee (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of specific material in the article

The following material is currently in this article:

===Cultural issues and immigration===

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

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

References

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

Survey

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

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

• Yes, but not quite in this form. The individual points are valid and well-sourced, but they don't have anything to do with immigration. The "Cultural issues and immigration" heading and the lead-in with immigration as the subject confusingly imply all this material is about cultural issues that have something to do with immigration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Not as written There is a consensus to use some of this content in the article (see long discussions above). The issue is, as proposed, it is inserting near copy paste [36] of what a COI IP [37] editor added. (IP editor's original add [38], what BYM added right down to copying an unrelated sentence from the lead [39]) The Harsin citations are self promoting rather than showing actual WEIGHT for inclusion. The subsection header makes no sense as the content isn't about immigration at all. After removing claims sourced solely to Harsin we are left with one sentence sourced to several authors. As The_Four_Deuces notes in the discuss above, it isn't clear if these are sources about RWP or sources about misinformation. To clearly establish weight for inclusion in this article they should ideally be sources about RWP. Still, as a compromise I would propose keeping that sentence and integrating it into the paragraph above. Additionally, we can review some of the other sources in the above discussions and see if they could add an additional sentence or two. Even with the Harsin sources this shouldn't be a stand alone paragraph. Springee (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

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

  BMK didn't actually provide evidence of their claims. BMK's actions also suggest that the following sentence was due in the section as they added/restored it 3 times, "American businessman and media personality Donald Trump won the 2016 United States presidential election after running on a platform that included right-wing populist themes." (added/restore [40][41][42]) Springee (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Springee (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

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

  So clearly you haven't been following the talk page discussions if 18 June [43] is the first time you were "aware" of the issue. Looking at the discussion that lead to this RfC I see I mentioned it in May (19th, 20th, 21st) and when I made edits reflecting group consensus on 17 June. If you were really carefully considering this addition vs just blindly restoring it why didn't you remove it the first, second or third time said it was a problem with the edit? You are correct, it's not part of the paragraph you quoted. However, it's hard to assume those sources or that paragraph was picked with any consideration vs was just blindly restoring the IP's edit given you didn't catch that you had copied the Trump sentence from the lead. Springee (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's more where these came from:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I came up with citations to defend myself.

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

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

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

Indeed, but, the "economic anxiety theory of right-wing populism"[44], seems to overlook the topic of the discussion. Yes, there is an economic anxiety element, but white supremacy, racism, and the like are at the root of Trumpism. And I think that's what is being skirted around or overlooked in this discussion. In fact, as you point out, ironically enough, there isn't a recession.[45] Andre🚐 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Additional discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

• That raises a serious issue with the whole section. Most of the content is sourced only to material written by Harsin (who appears to be associated with the IP addresses that have added references to his work across Wikipedia). If the other sources don't support Harsin's claims (right or wrong) then this is a body of claims sourced only to a single author rather than a consensus of experts in the field. Harsin's objectives here seem largely to tie this topic to the Post Truth Politics article. The PTP article heavily cites works by Harsin and those additions were made by IP editors (including the one who originally added the disputed content here) [46],[47],[48][49]. So the editor who says this content is due is an editor who seems to have an interest in spamming their own work on Wikipedia but fails to understand concepts like WP:V. Springee (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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