Talk:Social populism

Request for editors

May I please ask that anyone who is going to make extreme changes to this article put it up on this talk page for discussion first, and if the majority agree then it may be imposed. Thank you.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That would indeed be an approach, but you should leave the tags for now. They're helpful. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Convenience for everyone

I would call for all that wish to make edits to this page to please 'try out' their edit at 'a sandbox social populism' page at User talk:Thehelpinghand/draft for social populism which I hopes stop the edit wars.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No definition for Social Populism

Almost a week after the article was created, when the lack of a proper definition was pointed out, there isn't yet a single sourced definition for "Social Populism"'. At the intro first paragraph we are redirected for definitions to the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries. Here the results:

• Oxford Dictionary: "Social Populism": "No exact results found for social populism in the dictionary".
• Cambridge Dictionary: "Social Populism": "social populism was not found".

So, what are we talking about? Please. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:IANVS, yes I am aware that the internet Oxford University Dictionary doesn't have it, it is in my home copy of the OUP Dictionary if you would like I am more than happy to scan it and send a copy to yourself, just for info I'll be removing the tag as I have stated to try your edits on the sandbox page but obviously you disregarded that. Thanks.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS should be verifiable. Such an important reference for this article must be verifiable. I'm afraid your excuse is not acceptable. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 09:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehelpinghand (talk • contribs) 11:00, 3 July 2010

What would you like help with?  7  11:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Article for WP:AfD

I see no intentions of adressing the fundamental problem of this article, as expressed in previous discussions in this same talkpage. If a properly sourced definition for "Social Populism" is not given in a week, I'll AfD this article. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it would be better to merge the article with populism. TFD (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

References

This ref should do the trick, i`ll add it to the article now, or i would if the page was not locked out. mark nutley (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference proposed as a verifiable reliable source for the definition of "Social Populism" does not allow online reading for the cited pages. Maybe there are another relevant pages on the same book, or maybe another source on this topic? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, i`m unsure what you mean, i can see a definition for the term right there on page 100 whic his the link i have provided? mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm unable to read that page, at least by now. Can you tell me what does it literally says, please? Thanks. --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange, what browser do you use? It says (short version as i need to type it) "[Gokalp] writing on politics terms his theory social democracy when he means a form of government and social populism when he means a system of political beliefs" mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what happened, but I can read all pages by now. Thanks. --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition by Ziya Gökalp

So, should we attain to what Gökalp defines as "Social Populism" as the guiding concept for rewriting article? Is that concept by Gökalp notable enough for an entire article?

Or are there another definitions that do not contradict with what is further expressed through this article as of now? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)* (PS note: I didn't read the entire book yet, but as far as I read I understand that "Social Populism" is more of a normative concept Ziya Gökalp developed for the newly born Republic of Turkey, than an empirical/analytic concept useful outside the Turkish borders, or in any other times. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it carries enough weight given others are writing about his stuff. I also have found this paper which describes social populism the same way, ‘new’ ideological approaches (principally ‘social-populism’) this would fit with Gokalp`s stuff were he says it is a system of political beliefs mark nutley (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Social Populism is a system of political beliefs" is a categorization, not a definition. For we still don't known what political beliefs do define it. That's why that single line is not enough for definition.

As for the other link, it merely states that "social populism" is one of the new expressions of the "post 1989 European radical left". What does it have to do with Ziya Gökalp, or South America, or Imports Substitution policies, or even more with Ronald Reagan or the India National Congress??? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• (PS note2: Please, bear in mind that Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability and that the present evidence still does not adecuately define the concept) --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Recapitulation

User:Marknutley has provided two online references for "Social Populism". However, none of them is a proper definition of the concept. Moreover, they don't seem to be coherent whit each other:

• The Taha Parla book on "the social and political thought of Ziya Gökalp" has just a single mention of the term "Social populism", here. From that paragraph, and from the following pages we learn that "Social Populism"/"Social Democracy" is an alternative name for Gökalp's "social idealist"/"social solidarist" system. "Populism" is particularly used when he refers to it as a system of political beliefs, and "Democracy" when he refers to it as a form of goverment. This theory of him is not empirical/analytical, but normative, and was intended to influence the construction of the Republic of Turkey, apparently with some degree of succes. Evidently, this usage has nothing to do with this article, as it stands today. It is still to be decided if an article on the concept as used by Ziya Gökalp is notable enough for WP.

• Unrelatedly, the Abstract of the book "What's Left of the Radical Left? The European Radical Left After 1989: Decline and Mutation", by Luke March and Cas Mudde (see here), mentions "Social Populism" as a ‘new’ ideological approach employed by the post-1989 European "New Radical Left". As far as the online abstract goes, there is not any definition for "Social Populism", but we can be sure that this usage has nothing to do with either Ziya Gökalp's concept or the article as it stands today. It is still to be known if there is a verifiable definition for "Social Populism" by March & Cas, and to decide if it is notable enough for WP.

Considering all of this, and that Existence does not prove notability, I'm afraid that we do not have any proper, coherent, and notable definition for "Social Populism" yet. In any case, none of the possibly available definitions have the slightest conexion with the article as it stands today. So I will wait some more days, before I AfD this article. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 18:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

a mistake and an embarrassment

is what this article would be if it weren't for the fact that wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia. So mistakes like this due to a lack of education/erudition/whatever are unavoidable and this one has gone fairly far without being addressed. It appears to be at its core a neologism by an editor and the very essence of OR, and not in a good way although of course I celebrate the spirit behind it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You can comment further at Talk:Populism#Merger proposal. TFD (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I copmletely agree with 72.228.177.92. And I think that the point is already demonstrated fairly enough at this talk-page. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)