Talk:Right-wing populism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance in Politics.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Comments 2 Exploit and understand 3 POV 4 List of parties

[edit] Comments

I marked the articled as POV, since "radical right-wing populism" is a rather disputed term. It is primarily used as a term by leftist opponents of the mentioned parties. Radical right-wing Populism is merely a pejorative. 83.92.119.42 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Add to that complete lack of any kind of criticism of the term despite the term being heavily critisized. This article is heavily Far Left-biased. 83.92.119.42 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This term is used by many scholarly, non-partisan sources. And what secondary sources criticize this term or regard it as a mere pejorative? Note that you are not a secondary source. -- WGee 15:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wants can add information as they see fit. Please add any information you think is missing. Peregrine981 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Exploit and understand

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

[edit] POV

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

[edit] List of parties

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