Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential COI Declaration[edit]

Diversifying references[edit]

It seems 50+% of the citations seem to refer to a single book by Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser (which is itself extremely short). I noticed that somebody recently tried to change some of these citations to the original academic texts, and immediately got reverted. Having a wide range of sources is very important for verification, as well as by offering readers more directions for further research. So I think instead of shutting down such efforts, we should try and diversify the citations. Most the information in the aforementioned book is taken from existing research, so this should not be too hard. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im surprised this hasn't gotten more attention, the amount of references to that book almost reads as an advert Johannes.Dickenson (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming section ‘mobilization’ to ‘supply-side mobilization’.[edit]

The terms ‘supply-side’ and ‘demand-side’ are used in the literature to refer to the mobilisation of populism by elite (leaders) and mass-level (supporters) actors, respectively (see for example Mudde, 2007). I suggest renaming the section so as to (1) be more accurate; and (2) allow the creation of a section for demand-side mobilization. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversal of edits[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: Why have you reversed good faith edits without any explanation? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you made extensive changes with no consensus to do so. Please see WP:BRD - you made a Bold edit, I Reverted it, now please Discuss your proposed changes here before making the changes. Re-inserting the information is not the proper next step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, I'm talking of the reversal of edits by User:Meininger22. These do not strike to me as particularly bold, and many more bold edits have been done without discussion, as clear from the mostly empty talk page. It seems like WP:BITE to me, is all Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potentially useful source[edit]

This 2019 secondary source "Political Theory of Populism" (open access) might be useful in improving this article. Elysia (AR) (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mudde and Kaltwasser[edit]

The words "Mudde" and "Kaltwasser" have been used 214 and 203 times in the article, respectively (plus one "Kaltwaasser"). This catastrophic over-reliance is probably unique throughout the whole WP in all languages and timespans. I suspect it has reached the point of copyright violation in a handful of cases.

Bad wiki[edit]

This whole page reads like a 60 year old Conservative wrote it, it's not very impartial. It describes every trait of populist thought as a generally disproven theory, not as an actual political movement/ideology. A Conservative Saudi (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Include definition(s) in the lead[edit]

Since the definition of the term "Populism" has been recently challenged, I think it makes sense to at least include it's original (post party) and most durable definition (and perhaps other, more recent attempts to extend or invert the definition). [1] Sparkie82 (tc) 09:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recentism and revisionism[edit]

Dear editors, if you'd like to get a feel for how recent world events have dragged the term "populism" around, just look at this revision of this article [2].

(I had vague recollection of editing this article before and found this revision which I touched back in 2014.) Sparkie82 (tc) 09:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC of interest: Should the infobox of Sinn Féin list Left-wing populism as one of its ideologies?[edit]

A request for comment is taking place at Talk:Sinn Féin#RfC: Should the infobox of Sinn Féin list Left-wing populism as one of its ideologies? that may be of interest to watchers of this article. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Economic cost[edit]

"We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high." [3] Benjamin (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]