Talk:Social populism/Archive 1

Speedy deletion discussion

There are many differences between social populism and populism. For example there are all types of conservatism, e.g. liberal conservatism, social conservativsm. Please give me a while and I will develop this page to change it from being too similar to the ordinary populist page.

--Thehelpinghandforwiki (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: IMHO, this article shouldn't be tagged with speedy deletion, at the moment it may not stand up to WP:PROD but it shouldn't be speedied ^_^ Kind regards, Captain n00dle \^Talk 11:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was keep, and User:Chzz removed the template Captain n00dle \^Talk 11:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the CSD tag, as I believe that this is a separate topic, and deserves a chance. Having spoken to the article creator, I believe they intend to improve and reference it. Of course, this does not preclude any future proposed deletion or Article for deletion discussion. Chzz ► 15:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

-The article is poorly sourced: sources are scattered and do not apply to the core arguments. Most of it seems pretty much a WP:ESSAY.

-The article is inconsistent and confusing (almost incomprehensible sometimes) as it lacks comprehension and an adecuate explanation of context, mix up causes and consequences, pretend to easily explain complex processes without proper sources or even minimal logics.

-I'm afraid the approach may be flawed in whole. All in all, Unencyclopedic OR

Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 17:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of this is part of the A1 criterion. Take it to AFD if you really want to delete due to these issues (or better yet, fix it). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give some time to the authors to elaborate on the many problems this article has. Then I'll place it on WP:AFD. IMO, the entire approach is misguided. I'd rather start anew than try to fix this by myself. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approach

The approach of this article is vague and inconsistent. There are no proper definitions of the main subjects, nor a clear comprehension/explanation of the economic processes. Leave alone the lack of sources.

So I would suggest just a few fundamental issues to be tackled:

1) Please define how "Social Populism" is understood.

Who defines? (How can you define social populism as "social populist policies"?)
Who does apply the term to what experiencies?
Reagan and Thatcher can be considered in the same category than Hugo Chavez or Juan Perón?

2) How "Populism" and "Socialism" is defined in this approach? These are really problematic concepts, for sure.

Under what definition of socialism can former WB director J. Stiglitz be considered pro-socialist?
How it is defined the "South American socialism"? Examples?

3) How does "Populism" and/or "Socialism" and/or "Social Populism" affect politics and economics. Is the same effect everywhere?

Under what categories do you compare Latin American development with SE Asian economic/social developement?
Does "Social Populism" and "Orthodoxy" apply equally everywhere? (Chile and Malaysia; Brazil and Mexico)

How do you define orthodoxy? and "orthodox science"?

4) Please contextualize the assorted facts throughout the article

What does it implies the corralito in the argument?
What has to do the critic of neo-liberalism as an economic model with GWB?

Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]